text
stringlengths 512
504k
| summary
stringlengths 503
2k
|
|---|---|
DURHAM, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory conceded the governor's race Monday, clearing the way for Democrat Roy Cooper to be declared the winner nearly four weeks after Election Day.
The win by Cooper, the state's outgoing attorney general, gives Democrats an important consolation prize after a disappointing election across the country. However, Republicans retain super majorities in both legislative chambers.
In a video message from his office posted to YouTube, McCrory said, "Despite continued questions that should be answered regarding the voting process, I personally believe that the majority of our citizens have spoken, and we now should do everything we can to support the 75th governor of North Carolina, Roy Cooper."
McCrory, who became the first sitting North Carolina governor to lose a re-election bid, was weighed down by a series of divisive laws he signed, including House Bill 2.
That law limited LGBT rights and directed transgender people to use restrooms in schools and government buildings corresponding to the sex listed on their birth certificates. It led to companies, sports organizations and entertainers pulling their business from the state, costing hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in spending.
With appeals drying up and postelection counts padding Cooper's narrow lead, McCrory announced he was giving up after Durham County elections workers were within an hour of completing the state-ordered recount of 94,000 votes there after technical troubles on election night related to tabulation machines.
County elections board chairman William Brian said the updated tally from the recount, which began Saturday in the heavily Democratic region, conformed almost exactly the original totals.
"They have been correct and accurate since Election Day," Brian said.
McCrory, who won the office by a comfortable margin four years ago, was unable to generate the same voter support that lifted Republicans Donald Trump and Richard Burr to victory in the state.
Unofficial results at the State Board of Elections showed Cooper leading McCrory by slightly more than the 10,000 votes needed to avoid an automatic recount. A total of about 4.7 million votes were cast. The state board still must officially certify the results, likely this Friday.
In a written statement, Cooper praised McCrory for his public service and said he was proud to have received support from "so many who believe that we can come together to make a North Carolina that works for everyone." He talked up unity following a contentious election season.
Cooper has stated he wants House Bill 2 repealed because he said it promotes discrimination. He had said the law and other legislation McCrory signed has harmed North Carolina's brand as good place to do business and for public education.
"Together, we can make North Carolina the shining beacon in the south by investing in our schools, supporting working families and building a state that works for everyone," Cooper said.
McCrory defended signing House Bill 2 and unsuccessfully tried to focus his campaign on the state's recovering economy and finances during his four years in office. Flooding after Hurricane Matthew in October also gave McCrory the opportunity to project the image of a leader as he directed recovery efforts as cameras watched. McCrory also may have lost votes in his home county after public opposition to toll lanes being constructed on Interstate 77.
Cooper, a former state legislator first elected attorney general in 2000 won't enter office from a position of strength. Republicans hold veto-proof majorities in both chambers of the legislature, making it difficult for him to push his agenda — or stop theirs.
McCrory's defeat marks the first time a sitting North Carolina governor has lost a re-election bid since the state constitution was amended in 1977 to allow governors to seek a second term.
___
Robertson contributed from Raleigh. ||||| poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201612/1110/1155968404_5236323444001_5236250307001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true McCrory concedes in North Carolina
North Carolina GOP Gov. Pat McCrory has conceded the governor's race to Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper, after a prolonged canvassing of votes that stretched almost a full month after Election Day.
"Despite continued questions that should be answered regarding the voting process, I personally believe that the majority of our citizens have spoken and we should now do everything we can to support the 75th governor of North Carolina, Roy Cooper," McCrory said in a video statement.
Story Continued Below
McCrory is the first governor in the history of North Carolina to lose a bid for reelection, even as President-elect Donald Trump carried the state by 200,000 votes and GOP Sen. Richard Burr claimed victory by a similar margin in November.
But Cooper, who had served four terms as state attorney general, was able to convince voters to split their ballots. McCrory's reputation was damaged by his decision to sign HB2, which was widely condemned for discriminating against transgender individuals and was opposed by a majority of the state's voters.
The contentious race dragged into a weeks-long canvassing of the state, as provisional and absentee ballots were tabulated. But Cooper’s margin of victory continued to creep up during this time, from about 5,000 votes on Election Day to over 10,000 today.
McCrory's campaign had filed dozen of complaints around the state, the vast majority of which were dismissed by GOP-controlled county election boards. The campaign argued there was voter fraud in half of the state's 100 counties and claimed that dead people, felons and people who voted in other states cast ballots in the race.
"I want to thank Gov. McCrory and our first lady Ann McCrory for their service to our state,” Cooper said in a written statement. “Kristin and I look forward to working with them and their staff in what I expect will be a smooth transition. I’m proud to have received the support from so many who believe that we can come together to make a North Carolina that works for everyone."
The State Board of Elections granted the McCrory campaign’s request for a recount of 90,000 votes in Durham County, overturning the county’s earlier rejection. But the Durham County recount yielded little changes in the results, and McCrory opted to finally concede the race around noon on Monday. The recount is expected to wrap up later today.
Democrats are still fearful that McCrory and Republican legislators will take advantage of a late special legislative session to cement their power in the state, before Cooper takes office. Four of North Carolina's state Supreme Court justices currently make up a liberal majority on the seven-member court, but Democrats fear McCrory and the state's GOP-dominated Legislature could attempt to add two conservative-leaning justices to wipe out the liberal majority. The stated purpose of the special legislative session is to provide hurricane relief funding.
Elena Schneider contributed to this report.
This article tagged under: North Carolina
Pat McCrory ||||| Gov. Pat McCrory announced Monday that he’s conceded the election to Roy Cooper, assuring a new period of divided power in state government.
Four years after becoming the first Republican to win the North Carolina governor’s office in more than two decades, McCrory made the concession in a video message posted around noon Monday as a recount he requested in Durham County entered its final hours. Durham officials finished the recount later Monday with virtually no change in the vote tally there.
“I personally believe that the majority of our citizens have spoken, and we now should do everything we can to support the 75th governor of North Carolina, Roy Cooper,” McCrory said in the video. “The McCrory administration team will assist in every way to help the new administration make a smooth transition.
“It’s time to celebrate our democratic process and respect what I see to be the ultimate outcome of the closest North Carolina governor’s race in modern history.”
$20 for 365 Days of Unlimited Digital Access Last chance to take advantage of our best offer of the year! Act now!
With the concession, McCrory becomes the state’s first governor to lose a re-election bid since a constitutional amendment in the 1970s gave governors the ability to seek more than one four-year term. His defeat followed the nation’s second-costliest gubernatorial race and North Carolina’s most expensive ever.
Cooper, a Democrat and the state’s attorney general, had a lead of 10,293 votes over McCrory in nearly final election tallies on the State Board of Elections website Monday evening – about 0.2 percent of votes cast.
Cooper issued a written statement shortly after McCrory’s concession Monday, saying he looks forward to serving as governor. His campaign is planning to hold a “victory rally” on Tuesday night at N.C. State’s McKimmon Center in Raleigh.
“I want to thank Gov. McCrory and our First Lady Ann McCrory for their service to our state,” Cooper wrote. “Kristin and I look forward to working with them and their staff in what I expect will be a smooth transition. I’m proud to have received the support from so many who believe that we can come together to make a North Carolina that works for everyone. ... While this was a divisive election season, I know still that there is more that unites us than divides us.”
N.C. Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore both congratulated Cooper on the win Monday, ending weeks of speculation that the Republican-dominated legislature might intervene and declare McCrory the winner. Berger warned that Cooper “won his new office with a razor-thin plurality” and shouldn’t propose any tax increases as governor.
Berger’s comment hints at what’s likely to be a contentious relationship between Cooper and the legislature.
Cooper’s power as governor will be limited by the state legislature, which has a Republican supermajority in both chambers. That means that the GOP has enough votes to override Cooper’s veto of bills that Democrats oppose. And he’ll need support from Republican legislators to accomplish his policy goals.
“He’s really going to be playing defense at least for the first year,” said David McLennan, a political scientist at Meredith College. “He’s going to have to compromise on things he can compromise on with the General Assembly.”
Republicans said Monday that they hope to find common ground with Cooper on bipartisan legislation, something they weren’t often able to do with the last Democratic governor, Bev Perdue.
“I have no bitterness whatsoever toward Governor-elect Cooper and hope that we can continue to move the state forward,” said Rep. Kelly Hastings, a Cherryville Republican.
McCrory’s concession came nearly a month after Election Day, following dozens of election complaints filed by Republicans with help from the governor’s campaign. The majority of them were dismissed by GOP-controlled county election boards.
McCrory referred to those concerns in his concession video, calling them “continued questions that should be answered regarding the voting process.” The governor called Saturday for a State Bureau of Investigation probe into absentee ballots in Bladen County, shortly after the State Board of Elections dismissed a protest calling for those ballots to be thrown out.
Legislators could revisit the state’s election laws when they return in January, and some have indicated that the McCrory campaign’s concerns could result in changes.
The timing of McCrory’s announcement came as a surprise to many because Durham County’s recount was still underway Monday.
But by the time McCrory’s video was released at noon, it was becoming increasingly clear that the recount process was not finding any vote-counting errors that could favor the governor.
SHARE COPY LINK Gov. Pat McCrory's refusal to concede the election to challenger Roy Cooper draws over 100 protesters who chanted slogans and listened to speeches.
McCrory’s campaign had requested the recount of 90,000 ballots in Durham, arguing that the late addition of the 90,000 votes to the statewide tally on election night constituted an “irregularity.” McCrory appeared to have a lead in incomplete election results for much of the night until Durham’s tally was updated around 11:30 p.m.
The state elections board will meet later this week to certify the election results, and while McCrory has conceded, another race appears headed for a statewide recount.
Incumbent State Auditor Beth Wood, a Democrat, has a 5,976-vote lead over Republican challenger Chuck Stuber in the latest results – well within the 10,000 vote margin required for a recount. Stuber has said he’ll still seek a recount even though there will be no statewide recount in the governor’s race.
Cooper transition under way
With McCrory’s concession, attention can now turn to Cooper’s transition efforts ahead of his Jan. 7 inauguration.
SHARE COPY LINK Democrat Roy Cooper released a video Sunday, Nov. 22, 2016 thanking his supporters and declaring victory in the still-contested race for governor against incumbant Pat McCrory.
Cooper’s transition has been quietly under way for weeks since he declared himself governor-elect, and he recently named leaders for his transition team. A website encourages job seekers to submit resumes for administration positions.
The transition is being led by Ken Eudy – a former political reporter who founded strategic communications firm Capstrat – as well as Kristi Jones, Cooper’s longtime chief of staff in the justice department, and Jim W. Phillips Jr., an attorney who has known Cooper since their UNC-Chapel Hill days.
The team has been working out of homes and offices scattered around Raleigh, but McCrory’s concession could mean Cooper’s staff soon moves into state government office space. Four years ago, McCrory’s transition team used several floors of the Albemarle Building, located close to the state Capitol.
Cooper hasn’t yet named any of his Cabinet members, who will lead agencies ranging from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Health and Human Services. Those appointments are typically made in the weeks ahead of an inauguration.
Among his other appointment powers, Cooper will restructure the state and county elections boards with majority Democratic members, as required in state law. The state board appoints county board members.
“What I’ve been gratified by is the people who really understand Cooper’s vision about making a North Carolina that works for everybody, saying, ‘I want to be a part of it. What can I do to help?’ ” Eudy said last week.
Why McCrory lost
McCrory’s loss to Cooper came in an otherwise favorable year for Republican statewide candidates in North Carolina. Both presidential candidate Donald Trump and U.S. Sen. Richard Burr easily won the state, and the GOP picked up three Council of State positions currently held by Democrats: Insurance commissioner, state treasurer and superintendent of public instruction.
McCrory lost votes in urban areas because of his strong support for House Bill 2, the controversial law that among other provisions requires transgender people in government facilities to use the bathroom that corresponds to their birth certificates.
HB2 has prompted numerous sporting events to be moved outside North Carolina, as well as conferences and some corporate expansions – resulting in millions of dollars in economic losses. Opponents of the law made McCrory their main target, and the national LGBT advocacy group Human Rights Campaign was one of the first groups to celebrate the governor’s concession speech Monday.
“Pat McCrory’s reign of discrimination is finally over,” Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said in a news release. “McCrory’s stubborn and reckless support of HB2 cost him this election, and his defeat sends a powerful warning to lawmakers across the country that targeting LGBTQ people will not be tolerated.”
But HB2 wasn’t the only issue that prompted some of McCrory’s supporters in 2012 to vote against him this year.
McCrory also fared poorly in Charlotte’s Republican-leaning northern suburbs around Lake Norman. Much of the opposition to the governor there didn’t involve bathrooms: Voters were upset that McCrory wouldn’t stop a plan to build toll lanes on Interstate 77, the main commuter route in the area that has some of the region’s worst traffic jams.
McCrory, however, clearly hopes his legacy won’t revolve around tolls and bathrooms. In his concession video, he ticked off a number of accomplishments: Income tax cuts, pay raises for teachers, budget surpluses and 300,000 new jobs.
“While exhibiting the highest of ethical standards, I am proud that our team leaves the state a much better place than when we came into office,” the governor said in the video.
Fellow Republicans praised McCrory as he conceded defeat. “Four years ago, his leadership helped ignite North Carolina’s struggling economy, which is now the fastest growing in the entire nation,” U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis said in a news release Monday. “Our state’s elected officials would be wise to build on this momentum and ensure that North Carolina remains the best state to get a quality education, raise a family, run a business and retire.”
SHARE COPY LINK Video: Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of the NC GOP, said that his party would call for a statewide recount in the Governor's race if Durham County will not do a recount per their request. | North Carolina voters finally know who their governor will be in January: Democrat Roy Cooper. A month after the election, Republican incumbent Pat McCrory conceded defeat as a recount was winding down, reports the News & Observer. McCrory gave in Monday afternoon when it became clear that he had no chance of overcoming Cooper's slim lead of about 10,000 votes. The loss is an especially stinging one not only because Donald Trump carried the state, but because McCrory now has the distinction of being the first governor in state history to lose a bid for re-election. As the AP notes, a controversial law he signed into place that restricted LGBT rights played a role. Among other things, House Bill 2 requires transgender people in schools and federal buildings to use restrooms that correspond with the gender on their birth certificate, and the majority of state residents opposed it. Cooper has called for its repeal, though Republicans control both houses of the state legislature. On that note, Politico floats the possibility that McCrory may try to add two conservative justices to the state supreme court before he leaves office and thus end the court's liberal majority. The legislature has a special session planned in which that could happen, though its stated purpose is hurricane relief. |
In a speech on September 24, 2001, President George W. Bush stated that "Money is thelifeblood of terrorist operations today. We're asking the world to stop payment." (1) Accordingly,during the past year the United States has mounted a wide-ranging domestic and international effortto freeze, seize, and intercept the flow of funds to terrorist groups. Since the September 11 attacks,roughly $121 million in terrorist assets has been frozen worldwide, but less than 20 percent of thistotal has been blocked in the past 11 months. (2) Fora variety of reasons that will be discussed in thisreport, traditional anti-money-laundering tools appear to be of limited use in disrupting terroristfinancing, which follows a dynamic different from that of traditional criminal organizations. Inaddition, pre-September 11 financial support for terrorism from Middle Eastern sources reportedlyhas continued. (3) Furthermore, there is an increasingconsensus that pursuit of terrorists' funds couldentail significant domestic and international political costs, e.g. infringing on civil liberties orreligious freedom, alienating large Muslim constituencies, inflicting harm on poor countries, andaggravating conflicts with Islamic states. Some observers also criticize the diversion of resourcesfrom traditional criminal investigations (such as ones focused on drug trafficking) to tracking the relatively minuscule amounts of money that find their way into terrorist cells through a host ofinformal channels. How efforts to "follow the money" should be prioritized in and integrated witha comprehensive global struggle against terrorism thus becomes an issue of considerable significancefor U.S. policymakers and for Congress. An overarching goal of U.S. counterterrorism policy since the September 11, 2001, attacks hasbeen to expose, disrupt, and incapacitate the financial networks of terrorist groups. In a speechdelivered on September 24, 2001, President George W. Bush stated: "We will direct every resourceat our command to win the war against terrorists, every avenue of diplomacy, every tool ofintelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence. We will starve theterrorists of funding." (4) A key instrument in thiseffort was Presidential Executive Order 13224,issued on September 23, which blocked "all property and interests in property" of certain designatedterrorists and individuals and entities materially supporting them. (5) As of late November 2002, some250 individuals and groups, most of them al Qaeda-related, had been designated under the order and$36 million in terrorist-related funds in 92 separate accounts reportedly had been frozen by U.S.financial institutions. (6) The vast bulk of terrorist assets and funding sources, though, are considered to lie outside of the United States. Consequently, Washington has made considerable effort to enlist support of othernations in the campaign against terrorist financing. To some extent, international efforts havemirrored U.S. policy. For example, the United Nations Security Council (UNSCR), pursuant toUNSCR Resolution 1390 (January 16, 2002) and related preceding resolutions, maintains aconsolidated freeze list of some 300 individuals and entities linked to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden,and the Taliban. (7) The European Union and a numberof individual states maintain their ownterrorism lists and blocking orders. As a result of these various activities, approximately $85 millionof terrorist bank funds reportedly has been frozen outside the United States in the post-September11 period. Of the total $121 million blocked worldwide, more than 75% reportedly has been linkedto the Taliban and al Qaeda and the rest to other terrorist entities. (8) The bulk of the activity hasoccurred in a few countries. Although almost 170 nations have blocking orders in force, only 4countries, including the United States, account for about two-thirds of the blocked $121 million,according to U.S. financial data. How effective the campaign to limit terrorist finance has been is a matter of controversy. U.S. officials regard the effort as a vital adjunct to the overall fight against terrorism. They claim thatasset seizures to date have constricted the funds of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. A TreasuryDepartment fact sheet of September 2002 noted: "Our war on terror is working--both here in theUnited States and overseas. � Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are suffering financiallyas a result of our actions. Potential donors are being more cautious about giving money toorganizations where they fear the money might wind up in the hands of terrorists. In addition, greaterregulatory scrutiny over financial systems around the world in the future may identify those whowould support terrorist groups or activities." (9) Others have expressed skepticism about the campaign. As a recent report by a U.N. Security Council monitoring group observes, "Al Qaeda continues to have access to considerable financialand other resources." As noted above, reports indicate that less than 20 percent of the reported $121million total in blocked terrorist assets have been frozen since mid-January 2002, which suggests thatthe campaign is yielding sharply diminishing returns. "Government officials have indicated that ithas proved extremely difficult to identify these additional funds and resources," the U.N. reportconcludes. (10) The difficulty may be attributed to various factors. Some observers claim that al Qaeda is relying increasingly on non-bank mechanisms to move and store funds, such as converting assetsto untraceable commodities, including gold and diamonds, or moving funds via informal valuetransfer ("hawala") systems that leave virtually no paper trail. Alternatively, al Qaeda may haveacquired greater sophistication in laundering funds. Bin Laden himself remarked to a Pakistanijournalist shortly after the September 11 attacks that his financial backers "are as aware of the cracksinside the Western financial system as they are of the lines of their hands." (11) Additionally, the evident fragmentation of terrorist finances poses significant challenges for law enforcement. Many small terrorist cells are virtually self-sustaining, deriving income from legitimatebusinesses or from assorted small criminal scams. (12) In such cases, there is not much of a money trailto follow. Moreover, terrorist operations tend to be cheap; a U.S. government report notes "therelatively modest funds needed to undertake them elude all but the most concentrated oversight." (13) Apparently the September 11 attacks, which cost an estimated $500,000, required a strategic infusionof funding from outside (much of it reportedly from a terror support network in the United ArabEmirates). (14) Yet the highly destructive 1993World Trade Center bombing, according to its"mastermind" Ramzi Yousef, cost less than $20,000. Reportedly, the conspirators were able to fundthe operation themselves from criminal activities such as check and credit card fraud, and throughdonations raised from a local charity. (15) A related concern centers on the level of international cooperation in disrupting terror financing. Some of the wellsprings of financial support for terrorism, especially sources in Middle Easterncountries, reportedly have been little affected by the post-September 11 crackdown. A report by theCouncil on Foreign Relations released in October 2002 states, "For years, individuals and charitiesbased in Saudi Arabia have been the most important sources of funds for al Qaeda, and for yearsSaudi officials have turned a blind eye to this problem." (16) U.S. officials publicly state that they arepleased with Saudi cooperation, but it is widely believed that some Saudi donors continue to financeterror. (17) A July 2002 report by the RoyalCanadian Mounted Police states that in Saudi Arabia aloneindividuals continue to donate $1 to $2 million a month to bin Laden through mosques and otherfundraising avenues that also perform legitimate charity work. (18) Saudi performance in freezingassets seems to be improving; between late October and late November 2002 the amount of fundsblocked by the kingdom reportedly increased more than tenfold, but whether this enforcement actionhas significantly curbed the flow of funds to terrorists is uncertain. Washington can continue to tryto pressure the Saudis, but for overarching strategic reasons-U.S.-Saudi military ties and worlddependence on Saudi oil-U.S. leverage in the situation or the readiness to use it is limited. Another controversial topic concerns the scope of the U.S.-led campaign. U.S. designations under Executive Order 13224 target international terrorism broadly and include numerous terroristentities that have little or no association with al Qaeda. Yet the international community has not yetadopted a unified definition of who is a terrorist and what constitutes terrorist activity. The universaladage, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," has particular relevance here. Forinstance, the Convention on Terrorism of the Organization of the Islamic States says that "peoples'struggles aimed at liberation and self-determination shall not be considered a terrorist crime." (19) HAMAS and Hezbollah are excluded under this definition. Moreover, the European Union has notincluded Hezbollah on its freeze list but only designated the military wing of HAMAS (HAMAS Izzal Din al Qassem) for sanctions purposes. (20) TheU.N. list is limited to entities linked to al Qaedaand the Taliban. In the view of some, differences with European and Middle Eastern states overdesignations of terrorists could detract from the international fight against al Qaeda. Most controversial of all, perhaps, have been the U.S. freezing orders against Islamic charities and other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Certain charities allegedly serving as conduitsfor terrorist funds also support legitimate humanitarian causes. One targeted organization--the HolyLand Foundation for Relief and Development (HLFRD)--disbursed approximately $6 million in2000, mostly to Palestinian refugee families in Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel, according to its annualreport. (21) (HLFRD is the largest Islamic charityin the United States.) The government claims theHLFRD funds flow to the civilian "Dawa" infrastructure of HAMAS, which manages broad-basedcharitable activities for needy families, but also provides support for families of suicide bombers,some with HAMAS connections. (Also, other international donors may support the same causes. One allegedly HAMAS-controlled entity that the HLFRD financed--the al Razi hospital in the WestBank--also reportedly received assistance from the U.S. Agency for International Development aswell as the UAE's Red Crescent Society. (22) ) Furthermore, the government's policy, has beendescribed as having created the impression that America is intolerant of a religious minority. Givingalms to the less fortunate is a central tenet of Islam and charities are seen as performing an importantrole in this respect. As the director of the Muslim Affairs Council notes, "The administration policyhas interfered with a basic pillar or tenet of Islam: zakat or almsgiving � In this respect therestriction on Muslim charities is an issue of religious freedom." (23) The above discussion raises a number of significant questions with respect to U.S. counterterrorism policy and efforts to combat terrorist finance. First, based on the evidence, whatconclusions are to be drawn about current patterns and objectives of terrorist financing? Second,have freezing orders and related measures significantly impacted al Qaeda's ability to raise,accumulate, and transfer funds? Third, does the current U.S. approach carry higher costs thanrewards, and are other aspects of policy--such as dismantling terror networks and tracing andundermining their leadership--likely to yield better results? Fourth, can the fight against terrorfinance be made more effective, less disruptive, and more compatible with the policies of foreignnations? These questions will be addressed in the discussion that follows. Terrorists and criminals generate and manipulate money for different ends and in somewhat different ways. Viewed in the simplest terms, terrorists' regional or global financial networks aredesigned to serve predominantly non-financial goals--for example, seeking political influence orlegitimacy, or disseminating an ideology. Criminals, by contrast, are concerned primarily withamassing vast quantities of wealth and with concealing the fruits of their crimes. The distinctionshould not be overdrawn, because both terrorists and criminals engage in activity that could be called"political"--such as bankrolling political campaigns, issuing communications through the media,and sponsoring social projects in poor neighborhoods. Criminals occasionally turn to terrortactics--the Medellin cartel's bombing campaign in Colombian cities at the end of the 1980s is acase in point--and like terrorists, they have at times sought to negotiate amnesty arrangements withgovernments. Yet what criminals seek ultimately is protection in the broadest sense--a favorableand secure environment for the conduct of illicit enterprises. Terrorists' agendas usually are broadlygauged, aiming at liberation or self-determination of a group, redistribution of material power andwealth, or (in the case of bin Laden) fulfilling a radical religious vision. (24) Admittedly, the motivesof terrorists and criminals are sometimes intertwined; some criminals may harbor exalted politicalambitions and some terrorists may behave functionally as bandits. In addition, terrorists tend to finance their operations differently than criminals. Terrorists are known to engage in criminal activity such as robbery, fraud, drug running, and counterfeiting,especially at the individual cell level; yet unlike criminals they rely on contributions for a significantportion of their overall funding. "...the most important source of al Qaeda's money is its continuingfundraising efforts," notes the above-mentioned Council on Foreign Relations report. (25) Diversionof funds from charities and other NGOs plays an important role in this process, although somedonors convey funds to al Qaeda directly. Donors to charities may or may not be aware that someof their money will go to support al Qaeda operations or those of other terrorist groups. Terroristsare said to practice "reverse" money laundering: While criminals seek to obscure the origin ofillicitly-generated cash, terrorists harness ostensibly clean funds for violent and illicit purposes. Additionally, some terrorist organizations rely on sympathetic states for infusions of money, weapons, and training. Examples in the Middle East include the Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestiniannationalist organizations such as HAMAS, although such groups also maintain their own fundraisingmechanisms. (26) Iran currently appears to be theprincipal external sponsor of these entities. Bycontrast, profit-motivated criminals do not ordinarily receive government sponsorship or recognition,although governments might unofficially tolerate their activities (perhaps seeing no reasonablealternative). (27) Terrorist and criminal financing have features in common. Both have employed a range of bank and non-bank transactions to store and transfer funds. Yet in the post-September 11 climate,terrorists may feel especially pressured to move their organizations outside the formal financialsystem. Certainly the freezing of $121 million in terrorist funds, including more than $50 millionin al Qaeda-related accounts, represents a disincentive to using banks. It is possible that trade inhigh-value commodities such as gold and diamonds and reliance on underground banking systems(to be discussed in more detail below) will play a dominant role in terror finance for the foreseeablefuture. General Principles. Al Qaeda financing can be divided into two basic categories: One is more or less centrally-directed funding which supportssystem maintenance activities (recruitment of adherents, training and logistics, proselytizing and thelike) as well as coordination of significant terror activities. These derive mainly from businesscommitments and contributions from Arab supporters, though trade in drugs and commodities mayprovide an additional funding stream. A second category relates to the decentralized day-to-dayoperations of individual cells. Many of these are self-supporting from petty crime or various oddjobs and minor businesses. (28) Al Qaeda's total annual budget is a mystery. The U.N. Monitoring Group report referred to earlier estimates that wealthy individual donors contribute up to $16 million annually. The totalcentrally managed portion is said to be under $50 million a year, but little known evidence exists toback up these figures. (29) Key Sources. Osama bin Laden, son of a Saudi construction magnate, allegedly inherited a fortune that different estimates put at from $25 to $30million to $250 to $300 million. The money reportedly has been distributed in investments and bankaccounts in countries around the globe. The U.N. Monitoring Group report similarly places the sizeof bin Laden's business portfolio at $30 million to $300 million, with income from the portfoliohelping to finance al Qaeda. (30) Among bin Laden's first business ventures was the establishment of a network of companies in the Sudan, among them a trading firm, a construction company, an agricultural production andexport company, and a furniture-making concern. According to the U.S. State Department, binLaden also invested $50 million in shares of a Sudanese bank, the al Shamal Islamic bank. Accountsdiffer regarding the profitability of these ventures. In any case, bin Laden was expelled from theSudan in 1996, under pressure from the United States and Egypt, and was forced to sell his businessinterests there. According to the U.N. Monitoring Report, bin Laden's current portfolio includesinvestments in Mauritius, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Panama, as well as bankaccounts in Hong Kong, London, Dubai (UAE), Malaysia, and Vienna and "hundreds of millionsof dollars" secured in real estate in Europe and elsewhere. Such assets reportedly are held in thename of intermediaries and no further details are available. (31) Direct contributions from wealthy Arab benefactors and funds siphoned from Islamic charities are said to represent the mainstay of al Qaeda's global financial network. As noted, contributors mayor may not be aware that their money will be directed to al Qaeda's violent ends. "Knowing" donorsmay sympathize with terrorists' causes, but other motivations also may play a role. (32) For instance,it is widely reported that Arab businessmen paid al Qaeda operatives extortion money to forestallattacks on their business interests throughout the Middle East. Similarly, an al Qaeda-connectedgroup in the Philippines--Abu Sayyaf--is known to extort "revolutionary taxes" from localresidents, businessmen, and white collar workers. (33) The protection theme is a subject of a recent $1 trillion lawsuit brought by the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks against "financial sponsors of terror" in Saudi Arabia andelsewhere. (34) The plaintiffs allege, for example,that following the Khobar Towers bombing inDharan in June 1996 (which killed 19 U.S. military personnel and wounded 515 persons, U.S. andSaudi) that a group of prominent Saudis met in Paris where they "conspired" to pay off al Qaeda andbin Laden. The payments were "to ensure that al Qaeda would never attack inside the borders of theSaudi kingdom again." The plaintiffs also assert that a member of the Saudi royal family brokeredan agreement in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998 to "provide aid and generous financial assistance"to the Taliban in return for guarantees that bin Laden and his followers would not attack the Saudigovernment. The veracity of these allegations, however, has yet to be established (the suit iscurrently before the U.S. District Court). (35) Also, various Islamic charities and related nonprofit organizations allegedly are used by the bin Laden network to finance and recruit terrorists. The United States has designated 12 terror-linkedcharities, including 3 U.S.-based ones, under Executive Order 13224; some of them also are namedin the U.N. Security Council 1390 list. (36) Mediaaccounts, congressional testimony by experts, andother sources have named other charities in addition to the ones already listed. According to oneexpert on terror finance, at least 20 NGOs have been infiltrated and coopted by bin Laden and hisfollowers. (37) Reports suggest varying patterns of involvement. Some entire charities allegedly are tainted. They do "a small amount of humanitarian work and raise a lot of money for equipment andweapons," in the words of one U.S. official. (38) TheU.S.-based Benevolence International Foundation,the leader of which was recently indicted by a U.S. court, allegedly provided organizational coverfor al Qaeda operatives and funneled money to al Qaeda-influenced relief organizations abroad. (39) Perhaps a more typical pattern is for al Qaeda to infiltrate local branches of apparently legitimateinternational charities. For example, the Peshawar (Pakistan) office of the Kuwait-based Revival ofIslamic Heritage Society allegedly "padded the number of orphans it claimed to care for by providingnames of orphans that did not exist or who had died. Funds sent for the purpose of caring fornon-existent or dead orphans was instead diverted to al Qaeda terrorists." (40) A Philippine branchoffice of a large Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, allegedly suppliedfunding and weapons for two al Qaeda-linked groups: Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Liberation Front.Similarly, the United States and Saudi Arabia have jointly designated and frozen the assets of theSaudi and Bosnian offices of a multinational charity, al Haramain, for alleged links to al Qaeda.Some observers believe that the headquarters of al Haramain in Riyadh also has to some degreesupported al Qaeda, but the United States so far has not chosen to make that case. Other possible sources of strategic funding for the al Qaeda network can be cited. One terror financial expert says that "The al Qaeda network received millions of dollars per annum through theproduction and distribution of opium, which was smuggled through neighboring Central Asian statesor transported to distributor networks in East Africa. (41) However, some disagreement exists on thispoint. persuasive evidence exists that the Taliban benefitted from the trade; a U.N. Committee ofExperts Report estimated that the Taliban received between $15 million and $27 million per yearfrom taxes on opium production in the late 1990s, before banning such production in 2000. (42) Someexperts believe, however, that al Qaeda itself benefitted little from the traffic, which is said to behighly organized and resistant to penetration by outsiders. (43) Drugs may play a role in al Qaeda'sfinancing (as they do for many terrorist organizations) but their overall importance is uncertain. Trading in precious stones also appears to have played a role in al Qaeda's financing. For instance, the Washington Post , citing Western intelligence officials and other informed sources,claims that bin Laden's network "reaped millions of dollars in the past three years from the illicitsale of diamonds moved by rebels in Sierra Leone." (44) According to the Post , a top bin Laden advisornamed Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, also one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists, initiated contactswith a diamond dealer representing Sierra Leone's Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Liberia inSeptember 1998. Negotiations reportedly resulted in an agreement to buy uncut diamonds from theRUF on a regular basis; and Al Qaeda commissioned professional diamond traders to transport thestones to Europe and other destinations, where they were sold for sizable profits. (45) Another revenuesource appears to have been tanzanite, a valuable purple-brown crystal (it turns blue when heated)that is found only in northeastern Tanzania. In this cell, a key player appears to have been Wadial-Hage, reputedly a professional gem trader and former personal secretary of Osama bin Laden.(Al-Hage is now serving a life sentence for his role in the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa.)According to the Wall Street Journal , two al Qaeda companies--Tanzanite King and BlackGiant--exported quantities of uncut stones from Kenya to Hong Kong. How much al Qaeda earnedfrom these operations and whether the network is still in the tanzanite business are not known withcertainty. (46) Funds destined for the overall purposes of al Qaeda (recruitment, training, proselytizing, and the like) can be distinguished, at least conceptually, from funds generated by al Qaeda's largelycompartmentalized cells for their own financial support. Such cells, which reportedly exist in at least40 countries, engage in both legitimate small business activities and criminal ones. For instance,according to FBI documents, a Madrid al Qaeda cell ran a home repair company that providedmasonry, plastering, and electrical services, as well as an enterprise that restored and resolddilapidated vehicles. The cell's activities also included a criminal repertoire--credit card anddocument fraud, as well as street crimes such as home burglary and car theft. A Singapore-Malaysiaal Qaeda cell sold medical supplies and computer software but also engaged in bank robberies,violent assaults, and kidnappings. A few cells appear to generate significant revenues--beyond those needed for self-maintenance. These funds may revert to the organization as a whole. An Algerian al Qaeda cell detected in Britainin 1997 reportedly raised some $200,000 in 6 months. Yet the money was transferred out of Britainto banks in the Middle East and Pakistan and the cell members hardly lived in luxury. In al Qaeda'smost expensive operation, the September 11 attacks, hijackers reportedly transferred more than$25,000 in unspent funds back to unnamed terror financiers in the UAR. (47) Moving and Storing Value. Al Qaeda, like most illegal organizations, has relied on both conventional and unconventional means of moving andstoring funds. Prior to September 11, it appears, al Qaeda relied extensively on commercial banks,shell banks, front companies, NGOs, money exchange firms, and various financial service businessesto move funds for their global operations. The FBI has tracked $90,000 in wire transfers from theUAE to New York and Florida bank accounts of the September 11 hijackers. (48) Al Barakaat, afinancial and telecommunications conglomerate with offices in at least 40 countries around theworld, reportedly was channeling several million dollars a year to and from al Qaeda until thecompany's funds were frozen by the United States and the international community. (49) This pre-September 11 financial network has largely been disrupted, probably compelling al Qaeda to depend increasingly on an informal or alternative way of manipulating and transferringfunds. Several characteristic methods have come to light since the September 11 attacks andapparently predated them. One of those methods is the conversion of assets to commodities: The Washington Post reports that "al Qaeda operatives long before September 11 began shifting money out of bank accounts thatcould be traced and into untraceable gold and precious stones such as diamonds, tanzanite, andsapphires." (50) An article in the LondonObserver claims that al Qaeda struck deals in Africa fordiamonds worth more than $20 million in the months before the attacks. (51) Diamonds, it should be noted, are a particularly attractive commodity for smuggling operatives. "They don't set off alarms at airports, they can't be sniffed by dogs, they are easy to hide, and arehighly convertible to cash," notes a U.S. official. (52) Also, diamonds have a high value-to-weight ratio:a pound of average quality rough diamonds is valued at approximately $225,000. A pound of $100bills is worth in the neighborhood of $45,000, and a pound of gold, at $300 per ounce, is worth$4,800. (53) Reports also have surfaced of large gold shipments, allegedly controlled by al Qaeda and the Taliban, between Palestine and Sudan, apparently transiting Iran and the UAE. The Washington Post,citing European, Palestinian, and U.S. investigators, says that boxes of gold, usually disguised asother products, were taken from Nairobi to either Iran or Dubai and from there mixed with othergoods and flown by chartered airplanes to Khartoum. The Post refers to different reports that thegold represented stored profits from opium and heroin trafficking or remnants of Osama bin Laden'spersonal fortune liberated in the early 1990s. (54) A second alternative way of transmitting value between locations is through underground banking networks. Viewed in the most basic terms, underground banking, called by different termssuch as hawala, hundi, or black market peso exchange, is a way of sending money cheaply andanonymously across borders without physical transport or electronic transfer of funds. Thetransaction is essentially paperless. It works as follows. Money brokers (hawaladars) in one countryreceive cash from a client with no questions asked. For example, the client might be a cab driver inNew York who wants to send $5,000 to his brother in Karachi. The hawaladar alerts a correspondentbroker in Karachi by telephone, fax, or e-mail, who dispenses $5,000 (less fees and commissions)to the brother. Neither the sender nor the recipient needs to identify themselves; the latter only needsto provide a prearranged code, such as a sequence of numbers and letters, to complete thetransaction. At some other point, clients in another country may send an equivalent amount back tothe United States in the same fashion. Over time, the transactions are netted out and no currencyactually crosses national borders. (55) Thesenetworks can be used by terrorists although they wereoriginally conceived, and continue to serve, as financial exchange meechanisms largely involvingimmigrant workers. Similar principles underlie a money laundering system called the black market peso exchange (BMPE), used predominantly by Colombian drug dealers to reintegrate drug profit into their homeeconomies. In a typical BMPE transaction, a Colombian cocaine exporter sells cocaine in the UnitedStates for dollars and then sells the dollars to a Colombian black market peso broker's agent in theUnited States. The broker then deposits the agreed-on equivalent of Colombian pesos (minuscommissions) into the exporter's bank account in Colombia. In this fashion, no currency crosses theU.S. and Colombian borders. The broker may then resell the dollars to a Colombian importer whouses them to purchase U.S. goods that then are shipped or smuggled back into Colombia. (56) Tens of billions of dollars a year are said to move through such informal value transfer systems. Officials in Pakistan, for example, estimate that at least $7 billion enters that country through hawalachannels each year, substantially more than enters through banks. The black market peso exchangeis documented as the "largest known money laundering system in the Westernhemisphere"--representing up to $5 billion annually to Colombia. U.S. officials admit to havingvery little luck tracking movements of funds through these informal systems, which may explain whyefforts to break the terrorist financial chain have been decreasingly productive of late. (57) Yet another technique for laundering money used by terrorists is trade-based fraud, especially fictitious invoicing of exports or imports. Some hawaladars may balance their accounts this way. Inthe example given above, the New York broker might repay his counterpart in Karachi by sendinghim $20,000 worth of computer peripherals, but only invoicing him for $15,000. Such schemes mayhave played a role in moving funds to terrorists, although this is speculation. For instance, U.S. tradedata in 2000 suggest that there has been price manipulation of U.S. exports of honey to Persian Gulfstates. The December 9, 2002 study showed that in that year, for U.S. exports of approximately390,000 kilograms to UAE, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, importers in these countries paid anaverage of 35 percent over the U.S. per kilogram export price ($1.91), yielding excess funds of$257,000. Whether these funds were channeled to U.S.-based terrorists is not publicly known;however, two U.S. honey companies--the al-Nur Honey Press Shop and the al-Shifa Honey Pressfor Industry and Commerce--appear on the list of terrorist groups and entities designated by theUnited States. (58) The United States has pursued a comprehensive strategy for combating terrorist financing in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Reduced to its essentials, the strategy comprises twointerrelated objectives: The first is to locate, isolate, and freeze terrorist assets, both in the UnitedStates and globally. As already noted, the United States and the international community havefrozen $121 million in terrorist-related accounts since the attacks. A second is to disrupt terrorists'financial infrastructures--specifically, their formal and underground methods for transferring fundsacross borders and between cells, "whether through banks, businesses, hawalas, subverted charities,and innumerable other means." (59) Freeze ordersand other enforcement activities have effectivelyshut down some banks, financial companies, trading firms, and NGOs involved in manipulating andchanneling funds for al Qaeda. A critical underlying component of this strategy has been to enlistinternational cooperation in disrupting terrorists' finances. A Treasury Department report notes,"International alliances against terrorism are crucial because the overwhelming majority of terrorists'assets, cash flow, and evidence lies outside our borders." (60) Partial success has been recorded on thisfront, although problems remain, as will be discussed. Important organizational and regulatory initiatives have accompanied the implementation of strategy. New institutional arrangements and new powers granted by the president and Congress havefacilitated U.S. enforcement actions against terrorist financing. These will be summarized brieflybelow. On the organizational front, the new inter-agency task force Operation Green Quest and the Terrorist Financing Operations Section (TFOS)--headed respectively by the U.S. Customs Serviceand the Federal Bureau of Investigation--have enforcement responsibilities vis a vis terroristfinance. TFOS investigates the financial linkages and support of known terrorist cells, while GreenQuest tries to establish terrorist connections to ongoing investigations of criminal financing. Inpractice, however, the missions and activities of these entities reportedly overlap significantly. (61) Another interagency entity, the Foreign Terrorist Asset Targeting Group, now housed in the CIA'sCounterterrorism Center, analyzes and evaluates intelligence information on terrorist financial flows. Additionally, the Treasury Department has set up a Terrorist Tracking Task Force, the diplomatic arm of Treasury's enforcement effort, which works with foreign governments in blockingterrorists' access to funds. Within the State Department, a new Counterterrorism Finance Unit, underthe Office of Counterterrorism, has been established to oversee international information-sharing andtechnical assistance programs relating to terrorist finance. Also, existing anti-crime entities haveacquired new missions. For example, much of the U.S. and international architecture designed tocombat criminal money laundering--for instance, Treasury's Financial Crimes EnforcementNetwork, DEA's Financial Intelligence Unit, INL, and the 31-nation Financial Action TaskForce--focuses increasingly on specific issues and problems relating to terrorist finance. TheInternal Revenue Service's Tax Exempt and Government Entities Operating Division, whichoversees nonprofit entities, will now investigate "suspect charities of all stripes that provide financialand material support for terrorist groups." (62) Finally, an overarching entity has been establishedwithin the National Security Council, the Policy Coordination Committee on Terrorist Financing,to provide government-wide coordination of financial aspects of the counterterrorism effort. A related priority has been to strengthen the legal-regulatory basis for combating terrorist finance. An important step was the President's Executive Order 13224 of September 24, 2001, whichexpanded the U.S. government's power to freeze terrorism-related assets. The order included in theclass of targeted groups not just terrorists themselves (previous executive orders had imposedsanctions on the Taliban and on terrorists who disrupt the Middle East peace process) (63) but also onall those who provided financial or material support or who were "associated with" designatedterrorist groups. As noted, 250 persons and entities have been designated under the order, many ofthem falling into the category of financiers of terrorism. Other significant measures were mandated by Congress in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of October 25, 2001, entitled "The International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-TerroristFinancing Act of 2001." The Act both cast a wider regulatory net over U.S. financial institutions andrefocused the existing anti-money-laundering regime on the problem of terror financing. The Actmandated increased record-keeping, report filing, and internal policing requirements for a wide rangeof financial institutions--including such previously unregulated sectors as hedge funds, commoditiesbrokers, and commercial loan and finance companies. It prohibited or restricted access to the U.S.financial system by certain categories of foreign banks, including offshore banks, so-called shellbanks, and banks in unregulated jurisdictions. Much of the legislation seemed particularly relevantto criminal money laundering. Several provisions, though, seemed especially designed to disruptterrorist financial networks. For example, Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act stipulates that the "Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe regulations setting forth minimum standards" for verifying the identity ofcustomers, including foreign nationals, opening accounts at U.S. financial institutions. The standardswould include checking the name of the applicant against lists of known or suspected terroristsprovided to the financial institution by a U.S. government agency. Section 328 calls on the Secretary,in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to encourage foreigngovernments to require that all wire transfer instructions sent to the United States include the nameof the originators. Conceivably, such a provision could help authorities track terrorist donors, suchas those who financed the September 11 attacks. Section 330 concerns "International Cooperationin Investigation of Money Laundering, Financial Crime, and Financing of Terrorist Groups." Essentially, it empowers relevant U.S. agencies to conclude agreements with foreign financialsupervisors on two points: to ensure that foreign banks maintain records of terrorists' accounts andtransactions and to "establish a mechanism" whereby those records can be made available to U.S.officials. Other sections of the Act (359 and 373) extend the financial regulatory net to encompassall persons engaged in transmission of funds, including "informal money transfer systems." Underthese provisions, hawaladars or the equivalent would be required to register, obtain licenses, and filesuspicious activity reports (SARS). Finally, a provision of the Act criminalizes bulk cash smugglinginto or out of the United States. Such smuggling, defined as an undeclared movement of more than$10,000 in monetary instruments across U.S. borders, is described as "one of the most reliablewarning signs of drug trafficking, terrorism, money laundering" and similar crimes. (64) The United States also sought to internationalize various regulatory requirements vis a vis terrorist finance, and to some degree the international community consented. On September 28, theU.N. Security Council passed Resolution (UNSCR) 1373, which required member states tocriminalize terrorist financing and to deny terrorists safe harbor. UNSCR 1390 of January 10, 2002,obliged states to "freeze without delay" funds, financial assets, and other economic resources of alQaeda and Taliban related entities. A consolidated list of such entities, mandated by UNSCR 1390and by previous UNSCR resolutions (1267 and 1333), formed the basis of freezing actions. Inaddition, regional groupings such as the European Union and even individual countries establishedtheir own lists. Also, states were encouraged to focus on specific indicators of terrorist money laundering that might be distinguishable from classic money laundering. For example, the 31-member FinancialAction Task Force (FATF), the world's preeminent multilateral anti-money laundering body, hasrefocused its activities to some extent on the terrorist threat. At its October 2001 plenum inWashington, D.C., FATF adopted a special recommendation as a "basic framework" to detect andsuppress the financing of terrorist acts. The most important of the related recommendations includedfreezing and confiscation of terrorist assets, reporting of suspicious transactions related to terrorism,registration of persons or legal entities engaged in informal value transfer systems, documentationof originators of wire transfers, and strengthened oversight of NGOs that might act as conduits forterrorist funds. Similarly, the Asia-Pacific Group issued its own recommendation on AlternativeRemittance and Underground Banking Systems, calling for enhanced regulatory oversight. As partof this effort, the United States participated in a worldwide hawala conference held in the UAE,attended by 58 countries, in May 2002; this culminated in the May 16 "Abu Dhabi Declaration onHawala," expressing concern about the lack of "transparency and accountability in the hawala systemand calling on countries to increase government supervision to prevent abuse of the system bycriminal elements." (65) The U.S.-led effort to sever terrorism's financial lifelines has received mixed reviews to date. Bush administration officials claim that the effort has disrupted at least the centrally-managedportion of al Qaeda's funding, which has been linked largely to the formal banking system. "AlQaeda's stipends to followers are drying up and people are leaving al Qaeda. Donors have been sentthe message that they will be burned if they contribute," says one administration expert on moneylaundering. Nevertheless, some experts believe that the funds seized internationally since September11, 2001, represents only a small fraction of the funds and resources believed to be still available toal Qaeda and the Taliban. (66) Some reports suggestthat al Qaeda may have converted a significantportion of its assets into commodities such as gold and diamonds some months prior to the attacks.Also, some observers point out that the financial needs of al Qaeda have been reduced with thecollapse of the Taliban government and the destruction of most of their training camps inAfghanistan, leaving funds available for other activities. According to the U.N. monitoring report,these may include "a stepped-up indoctrination and recruitment program that provides support torelated fundamentalist organizations, schools, and social organizations." (67) Furthermore, key elements of the al Qaeda organization may still be in place and capable of directing terror operations--October 2002 attacks on a French oil tanker in Yemen and a destructivenightclub blast in Bali as well as the bombing of an Israeli tourist hotel in Mombasa, Kenya havebeen linked in varying degrees to al Qaeda or local affiliates. Additionally, the network's topstrategists Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri apparently have successfully escaped detectionby the authorities. The future direction and odds of success of the campaign against terrorist finance also are uncertain. From a purely financial standpoint, the campaign is yielding diminishing returns, with thebulk of the freezing actions having occurred in the three-month period between September 11, 2001and mid-January 2002. Operation Green Quest reportedly seized $19 million (to October 2002) insmuggled cash and other monetary instruments, of which $11 million is "Middle Eastern related,"yet Green Quest has not determined or is not prepared to acknowledge that any of these funds arelinked to terrorist groups. (68) Certain limiting factors in the campaign already appear evident. One relates to the regulatory burden imposed on U.S. financial institutions. The sheer volume of paperwork required of U.S.financial institutions to comply with anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (PL91-508 as amended) and the USA PATRIOT Act (PL 107-56) is enormous. In FY 2001, some12,600,000 currency transaction reports (CTRs), required for transactions above $10,000, and182,000 suspicious activity reports (SARs) were filed with the Treasury Department. (69) Separatingout financial activity of serious criminals, including terrorists, from the more than 12 millionstandard reports filed annually is a task of Herculean proportions. Terrorists can enter the UnitedStates, set up bank accounts, draw on them, and consummate their operations long before theirnefarious plans come to light. One of the September 11 terrorists, Mohammed Atta, had been thesubject of a SAR filed by his bank in connection with a transfer of $69,985 wired into his accountin September 2000 from the UAE. Yet this report was just one of the 153,500 SARs filed that year,and was not distinguishable from those related to other suspected financial crimes. (70) In addition, most terrorists' financial transactions, unlike those of major criminals, tend to be small--falling below the $10,000 threshold that requires notification of the U.S. authorities. Finally,the ability of financial institutions to fully implement enhanced security and due diligenceprocedures itself may be questionable. Such procedures are costly and time-consuming, and someinstitutions may lack the required resources. For such reasons, increased financial regulations andpaperwork might not represent an effective way to stop terrorist finances and the acts that result fromthem. Al Qaeda's adaptiveness in the face of increased law enforcement pressure also is cause for concern. As noted, al Qaeda transferred a portion of its exposed assets into untraceable preciouscommodities (gold, diamonds, and precious stones) even before the September 11 attacks, possiblyas early as 1998 when the United States and some European governments initiated certain freezingactions against the Taliban. Such commodities are small and easy to store and transport. Moreover,they retain their value over time and can be introduced in small quantities in the market withoutattracting attention. (71) One area of U.S. nationalmoney laundering strategy is to investigate the linksbetween precious stones and commodity trading and the funding of terrorist groups; however, thisis an extremely complex task offering uncertain payoffs at this stage. (72) Also significant is evidence that nontraditional money movement systems such as hawala play an increasing role in the terror financial chain. As the U.S. monitoring report notes, al Qaedamembers "will likely use the hawala system to circumvent the regular banking system and possibledetection via Suspicious Transaction Reports." (73) The USA PATRIOT Act, as noted, requireshawala-type businesses to register and to file SARs, but whether those engaged in illegal moneytransactions will do so is a matter of speculation. "That's like saying the corner bookie must registerwith the FBI," says one former U.S. federal prosecutor. (74) As of mid-2002, according to one report,only about 10,000 of an estimated 250,000 money service businesses in the United States hadregistered under the new regulations. (75) Also, theU.S. enforcement record against undergroundbanking systems has been extremely modest. For instance, an intensive U.S.-Colombianinvestigation of the black market peso exchange, which reportedly represents up to $5 billion dollarsannually to Colombia, resulted in seizure of only $8 million in cash as well as some quantities ofdrugs and firearms. (76) The new legal tools under the PATRIOT Act will increase risks for illegal money remitters, but some observers contend that the most likely result could be an increase in the commission theycharge their customers. Putting them out of business or even disrupting them significantly wouldrequire refined targeting of ethnic communities where they operate and extensive undercoverinvestigations; and the results, some argue, might not justify the societal costs or forestall terroristattacks. (77) Also problematic from a law enforcement perspective is al Qaeda's relatively fragmented structure, comprising numerous supporting cells spread over many different countries. Al Qaeda may have further decentralized its operations as a defensive measure since the September 11 attacks. Thepossibility exists that the network could survive in some fashion, even if central sources of fundingare reduced or cut off. U.S. counterterrorism expert Steve Emerson stated in recent Congressionaltestimony, referring to a fishing company managed by an al Qaeda cell in Kenya in 1998: "Thisindependent business structure is a particularly troubling development, because it heralds thelikelihood of terrorist cells operating independently from any foreign financial benefactor, raisingthe lion's share of their assets from otherwise legitimate, nondescript commercial entities." (78) Therelated implication is that law enforcement agencies must spread their resources across a vast numberof low value targets in the hope of discovering a terrorist connection. This may well be happeningin the United States. An August 2001 Washington Post article reported that U.S. authorities areinvestigating more than 500 mostly Muslim and Arab small businesses to determine whether theyare dispatching money raised through commercial activity to terrorist groups overseas. Such activityincluded a potpourri of petty crimes: "skimming the profits of drug sales, stealing and reselling babyformula, illegally redeeming huge quantities of grocery coupons, collecting fraudulent welfarepayments, swiping credit card numbers, and hawking unlicenced t-shirts." (79) Finally, some observers question whether the international campaign against terrorist finance has significantly weakened al Qaeda's main fundraising structure, reportedly centered in SaudiArabia and other Persian Gulf states. Many details of U.S. cooperation with Gulf states in thecampaign are not in the public domain. (For domestic political reasons, Gulf states have beenreluctant to disclose what kinds of assistance they have provided to or accepted from the UnitedStates in this sphere.) Nevertheless, there are signs that cooperation is sometimes halting andincomplete. Major donors in the Middle East still reportedly are funneling millions of dollarsannually to al Qaeda. According to some observers, large international charities based in SaudiArabia with histories of alleged links to Islamic terrorism have not been significantly affected by thefreeze campaign. The United States and Saudi Arabia have jointly designated one such entity--thegovernment-supported al Haramain Islamic Foundation--but the designation was limited to alHaramain's Bosnian and Somali branches. (80) Atthe same time, Saudi officials have publicly rejectedcriticism that the kingdom has not done enough in the global war against terrorism, saying thatdetractors were helping Osama bin Laden by driving a wedge between the United States and SaudiArabia. (81) Al Haramain seems to illustrate the limits of U.S.-Saudi cooperation in fighting terrorist finance. In August 2002, Bosnian authorities lifted a freeze on al Haramain's bank accounts that hadbeen imposed following the joint U.S.-Saudi designation in March and also renewed theFoundation's license to operate in Bosnia. Some experts believe that pressure from Saudi sourceswas behind these moves. (82) Saudi newspapersreported in September that al Haramain was expandingits operations in both Bosnia and Somalia and that it had opened a $530,000 Islamic center inSarajevo. Additionally, there are recent news reports that the Foundation's support for terrorism mayhave extended well beyond Bosnia and Somalia to encompass combat operations by rebel groupsin Chechnya as well as activities of Indonesian militants affiliated with al Qaeda. (83) Saudi intransigence and U.S. timidity in dealing with it are widely viewed in the United States as major obstacles to progress in the war against terror, despite repeated official Saudi denials. Asone U.S. analyst notes, "The U.S. has failed to present a coherent political strategy aimed atdelegitimizing the ideology of Islamic terrorism and undermining terrorists' sources of support. Andit is becoming increasingly clear that the reason for this failure is Washington's unwillingness to riska rupture with Saudi Arabia." Yet the domestic political context constrains Saudis' freedom of actionin suppressing the funding of Islamic militants, including terrorist groups. As the above-mentionedCouncil on Foreign Relations report notes, "It may well be the case that if Saudi Arabia and othernations in the region were to move quickly to share sensitive financial information with the UnitedStates, regulate or close down Islamic banks, incarcerate prominent Saudi citizens or render themto international authorities, audit Islamic charities, and investigate the hawala system--just a fewof the steps that nation would have to take--it would be putting its current system of governance atsignificant political risk. Successors to the current regime could easily be drawn from the veryelements in their societies that the United States is seeking to suppress." (84) Information presented in this report suggests that, while the current campaign against terroristfinance reportedly has diminished al Qaeda's ability to recruit and sustain allegiances, significantfunds still appear to be available to the organization. Efforts to further regulate and introducetransparency into the global financial system are welcome steps; yet they will not necessarily reduceterrorists' striking capacity because most of the proposed measures cannot with certainty separateout terrorists from other types of lawbreakers. The plethora of reporting requirements creates a sortof "needle-in-the-haystack" problem for the authorities. Al Qaeda's evident ability--documentedeven before the September 11 attacks--to exploit non-bank mechanisms of moving and storingvalue, as well as its structure of decentralized self-supporting cells represent additional constraintson law enforcement. Finally, in the view of many observers, the amount of cooperation againstterrorist financing that can be expected from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, where support ofPalestinian "freedom fighters" and opposition to U.S. and Isreali policies in that region has gone onfor decades, is problematic. Investigation of terrorists' finances can be a useful tool for identifying linkages among terrorist cells and possibly major donor networks. Analyses of records confiscated by Green Quest and TFOSmight contribute more to the anti-terror fight than the actual freezing of assets, which so far has beenmodest. These collateral benefits are difficult to assess because much of the relevant information remains in the classified realm. Also the Treasury Department announced in November 2002 thatit was offering a reward of up to $5 million for information "leading to the dismantlement of anysystem used to finance a terrorist organization." (85) Much larger rewards ($25 million) have beenissued also for the capture of al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and his aide Ayman al-Zawahiri,but with no result. In general, the potential of these investigative tools remains to be developed.Terrorists, like criminals, can work through labyrinths of intermediaries, create false trails, andexploit Internet money transfers and new payment technologies to disguise the source and ownershipof their illicit proceeds. Overall, although U.S. financial actions against terrorism have produced significant tangible successes, whether measured in terms of immobilization of funds or of knowledge gained aboutterrorist structures, the full impact of those actions is uncertain. The Bush administration's 2002National Money Laundering Strategy promises to "apply the lessons we have learned from thefederal government's effort against money laundering to attack the scourge of terrorism." Yet suchefforts have made limited headway against money laundering operations such as the black marketpeso exchange that recycles billions of dollars in illegal proceeds, mainly from the drug trade. Terrorists' multitudinous small transactions, often camouflaged as legitimate business or socialactivities, may prove even more difficult for financial investigators to track and shut down. Furthermore, the campaign against terrorist finance has provoked controversy on various religious, public policy, and humanitarian grounds. The new antiterror standards have been portrayedas selectively anti-Islamic. Indeed, the 12 charities designated under Executive Order 12334 allappear to be associated with Islamic causes. Some observers speculate that the U.S. image abroadhas suffered as a result of the freezing of charities' funds. One U.S. Muslim spokesperson agrees,"In an ideal setting, American Muslim charities serve a national security interest by promoting apositive image of America throughout the Muslim world. Unfortunately, the view that America'sMuslims are a harassed or persecuted minority is gaining ground overseas, partly because of theblockage of the Muslim charities." (86) A related issue concerns the Bush administration's definition of the terrorist enemy, which, as noted, clearly diverges from that of European and (especially) Middle Eastern states. The broad U.S.designation of Islamic militant groups for freezing purposes is said to have deepened the sense ofambivalence and unease in the entire Arab region. According to one account, "Countries such asSaudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria have urged Bush to focus narrowly on blocking off binLaden's financial network rather than simultaneously targeting other terrorist groups." (87) In this view,Washington's simultaneously broad and unilateralist approach to terrorism detracts from theinternational coalition against al Qaeda, diminishing the chances that Arab governments will crackdown on its major supporters. Other possible dysfunctions of the campaign relate to the interruption of assistance flows. For instance, the crux of the government's case for closing the Holy Land Foundation was that theFoundation's projects in the West Bank and Gaza allowed HAMAS to amass popular support "bydistributing charity to people who then associated this social outreach with HAMAS." (88) Yet thebenefits of cutting funds to HAMAS-controlled entities in this case can be weighed against thepotential human costs. The Foundation's programs and services have "directly improved the livesof more than 500,000 people," (89) according to its2000 Annual Report. (The fact that otherinternational donors, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development, supported aHAMAS-built hospital funded by Holy Land underscores the dilemma associated with charitablegiving in this war-torn region.) In sum, while charities and other financial entities may move money to terrorists, U.S. efforts to shut off this flow have caused controversy. In the view of some observers, closing down entireenterprises that fill social needs in poor countries in order to keep some funds out of terrorists'hands carries excessively high political and diplomatic costs. No simple solutions may exist to thisapparent conflict. However, various "damage control" measures have been proposed to increasetransparency of charities' operations and reduce their vulnerability to freezing actions. These includerequiring charities to list their donors, to specify exactly how their funds are used, to reveal thenames of their directors, and to disclose financial links to other charitable organizations. Anotherproposal is to treat charities under existing legislation (the 1970 Bank Secrecy Act and the 2001 USAPATRIOT Act) as financial institutions subject to money laundering risk; charities would then berequired to submit Suspicious Activity Reports, establish internal audit procedures, and submit tofederal examiners like, say, banks, insurance companies, and hedge funds. (90) More regulatory oversight might afford officials the chance to indict and prosecute individuals (or branches) within charities that are disbursing funds to terrorists, while preserving the financialsituation of the organization as a whole. The United States has proposed to other countries, includingSaudi Arabia, that they set up government bodies to better monitor and control charities, so the ideaseems to be gaining currency. Saudi Arabia itself has announced plans to set up such a governmentagency. (91) To be sure, wealthy donors who wantto support al Qaeda terror bombers need not usecharities as conduits for their funds. (92) Yetincreasing regulatory scrutiny could both diminishcharities' role in terrorist finance and allow legitimate funding of projects to proceed, which are theprincipal points at issue here. Recently, the Treasury Department issued "voluntary best practices"guidelines for charities in response to requests from American Muslim communities who reportedreductions in charitable giving and apprehensions among charitable donors as a consequence of Treasury's blocking actions; whether these guidelines will provide sufficient protection to charities,though, remains to be seen. (93) A more difficult problem is reconciling the different U.S. and Middle Eastern conceptions of what constitutes terrorist activity. The more encompassing U.S. definition, which reflects U.S.policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as widespread domestic abhorrence of violencedirected against civilians, clearly is at odds with that of much of the Islamic world. (94) The ratheregregious fund-raising campaigns in Persian Gulf states in support of families of Palestinian"martyrs," including suicide bombers, epitomizes these conflicting perceptions. A possible U.S.strategy in this situation would be to pursue the campaign against terror finance on different levels,publicly asserting opposition to terrorism in any form while privately seeking agreement with SaudiArabia and other involved states on ways to curb flows of funds to al Qaeda. Even with a limiteddiplomatic agenda, though, obtaining meaningful cooperation against terror may prove to be anuphill battle. (95) | The U.S.-led international campaign to deprive terrorists of funding has so far produced mixed results. Though more than $120 million in terrorists' accounts reportedly has been blocked sinceSeptember 11, 2001, less than 20 percent of this total has been frozen in the past 11 months. Theal Qaeda network increasingly is shifting to non-bank methods of moving and storing value and isrelying on a decentralized structure of largely self-financing cells; moreover, Middle Eastern donorsapparently continue to provide funds to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. In addition, thecampaign has aroused controversy on various political, religious and humanitarian grounds and isviewed in some quarters as broadly anti-Islamic. How the crackdown on terror finance should beprioritized and integrated with a comprehensive global struggle against terrorism thus becomes anissue of considerable significance for U.S. policymakers and for Congress. |
The importance of airborne trade to the U.S. economy has steadily increased over the last 20 years, and the international movement of goods by air is critical to many U.S. export industries. The international aviation market is, however, heavily regulated by bilateral agreements between countries, which often limit airlines’ traffic rights—the routes they can fly and the frequency with which they can fly those routes. The departments of Transportation (DOT) and State have traditionally negotiated these agreements as part of a comprehensive exchange covering both passenger and air cargo services. However, air cargo services have characteristics and needs that differ significantly from those of passenger services—most prominently the need to move and store cargo on the ground. When these needs are not met, the competitiveness of these services is compromised. International air cargo services play a vital role in facilitating U.S. trade.As shown in figure 1.1, since 1975 the airborne share of the value of U.S. exports has more than doubled, and the airborne share of imports has almost tripled. In 1995, the value of U.S. airborne trade reached $355 billion, accounting for 31 percent of U.S. exports and 23 percent of imports—or 27 percent of all U.S. trade. U.S. airlines generated about $3.9 billion in revenues from international freight operations that year, according to DOT’s data. The development of global systems for producing and distributing goods and an attendant increase in the use of “just-in-time” inventory systems, which reduce the need to warehouse spare parts and finished products, have contributed, in part, to the growth of international air cargo services. Some analysts consider the efficiency of such supply chains to be an increasingly important competitive advantage in numerous industries. International air transport is critical to shippers who need speed and reliability. This means of transport is particularly appropriate for moving goods that (1) have high value-to-weight ratios, (2) are fragile, (3) are physically or economically perishable, and/or (4) are subject to unpredictable demand patterns. Almost 70 percent of the exports of U.S. computers and office equipment and over half of the exports of U.S. communications equipment moved by air in 1994. From 1990 to 1995, airfreight traffic between the United States and foreign countries grew by 50 percent. This traffic accounted for approximately 38 percent of the world’s estimated total airfreight traffic in 1994, the last year for which data are available. The trade to and from Latin America almost doubled. Europe and the Asia/Pacific region are the largest air trade markets for the United States, accounting for about 70 percent of the country’s air trade by weight in 1995. Furthermore, according to the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group’s forecast for airfreight traffic,international markets offer the greatest opportunities for U.S. airlines to expand their freight operations—the rate of growth in almost all international airfreight markets is forecast to exceed that of the U.S. domestic market. The international air cargo industry comprises three types of carriers: (1) integrated all-cargo carriers, such as Federal Express, that operate cargo-only aircraft and primarily offer express door-to-door delivery of shipments; (2) scheduled and charter all-cargo carriers that operate cargo-only aircraft and primarily offer airport-to-airport service; and (3) passenger/cargo carriers that carry cargo on board passenger aircraft but also may operate cargo-only aircraft, and primarily offer airport-to-airport delivery. Air cargo services have significantly different operating requirements from passenger services. First, unlike most passengers, air cargo moves in one direction only. This frequently results in directional imbalances in the flow of cargo traffic. To operate economically, a cargo carrier must have the flexibility to alter routings to take advantage of changes in traffic flows. Because most cargo is inanimate, it is also less sensitive than passengers to the number of stops made en route, to the directness of routing, or to changes in aircraft. Nevertheless, speed is usually critical to competitive air cargo services. According to DOT, rights to serve destinations without restrictions, along with the ability to route services flexibly, are even more important for efficiency in cargo operations than in passenger operations. Finally, the movement and storage of air cargo on the ground are vital for cargo services. For express carriers offering door-to-door service, the ability to operate pickup and delivery service—that is, to have intermodal rights—is essential for competitiveness. All-cargo carriers hauled almost 60 percent of the international freight carried by U.S. airlines—over 1.3 million tons in 1994. As shown in table 1.1, services by U.S. all-cargo airlines are particularly important in Latin America and the Asia/Pacific region, where they carried over 70 percent of the freight transported by U.S. airlines in 1994. In 1994, U.S. airlines flew more scheduled international freight ton-miles—about 16 percent of the world total—than the airlines of any other country. Nonetheless, U.S. carriers have not competed as successfully in international freight markets as they have in international passenger markets. From 1990 through April 1995, U.S. airlines achieved a 40.7-percent share of the U.S. international freight market, on average. By comparison, U.S. passenger/cargo airlines averaged a 53.3-percent share of the U.S. international passenger market during the same period. Notably, according to DOT’s data for 1994, airlines from foreign countries other than those where the freight originated or was destined—so-called third-country carriers—obtained a 21-percent share of the traffic in the 20 leading U.S. international freight markets. Most international airfreight is carried by major foreign passenger/cargo airlines. In contrast to the U.S. domestic market, where integrated all-cargo carriers carry about 60 percent of the freight traffic, the majority of the world’s scheduled freight traffic is carried by passenger/cargo airlines—almost 60 percent in 1994, according to the Air Cargo Management Group, an air cargo consulting firm. The comparatively small U.S. share of international freight traffic is due, in part, to the greater emphasis foreign passenger/cargo airlines have traditionally placed on freight operations compared with U.S. passenger airlines. U.S. passenger/cargo airlines have historically viewed cargo services as a by-product of their passenger services, and all but one of these airlines had ceased operating cargo-only aircraft until this year. Northwest Airlines was the only major U.S. airline operating such aircraft in 1995, though both United Airlines and Continental Airline’s subsidiary, Continental Micronesia, recently announced plans to begin all-cargo services in the Asia/Pacific region. By contrast, many major foreign passenger/cargo airlines, such as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Air France, and Lufthansa, operate all-cargo aircraft or so-called “combi” aircraft, on which cargo is carried in the main compartment of the passenger aircraft in addition to the bellyholds. Appendix I contains additional information on the status of the international airfreight industry. Under a framework established by the Chicago Convention in 1944, international aviation is largely governed by bilateral agreements. Two countries negotiate the air transport services between them and award airlines traffic rights. In general, traffic rights determine (1) which routes can be served between the countries and between them and third countries; (2) what services airlines can provide (e.g. scheduled or charter); (3) how many airlines from each country can fly the routes; and, in some case (4) how frequently flights can be offered. For the United States, the responsibility for developing international aviation policy and negotiating bilateral agreements resides with DOT and the State Department. Traditionally, these agencies have negotiated bilateral agreements as part of a comprehensive exchange of rights covering both passenger and cargo services. In 1989, DOT issued a statement of U.S. air cargo policy that established specific negotiating objectives designed to ensure the least restrictive operating environment for U.S. air cargo services. The 1989 statement reiterated DOT’s traditional policy of conducting comprehensive negotiations as the best means to accommodate the international interests of all-cargo airlines. DOT’s 1995 international aviation policy added the agency’s willingness to consider negotiating bilateral agreements that cover only cargo services. The State Department also helps develop aviation policy and is responsible for chairing negotiations with foreign governments and coordinating DOT’s actions with overall U.S. foreign policy. Under 49 U.S.C., section 41310, the Secretaries of State and Transportation, as well as the heads of other agencies, are required to take all appropriate action to eliminate any discrimination or unfair competitive practices faced by U.S. airlines overseas. U.S. carriers can file formal complaints with DOT about such practices. DOT takes the lead in formulating policies and countermeasures to resolve such problems, which are regulatory obstacles, administrative inefficiencies, or restrictive practices that inhibit airlines from fully exercising the rights available to them under bilateral aviation agreements or that reduce the competitiveness of their services. Concerned about the international interests of U.S. all-cargo airlines, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of its Subcommittee on Aviation asked us to address the following questions: What are the problems that all-cargo airlines face in doing business abroad, and what actions have the affected airlines and the U.S. government taken to resolve these problems? To what extent has the U.S. government addressed air cargo issues in policymaking and during bilateral aviation negotiations, and what are the possibilities for separating negotiations of air cargo services from broader negotiations that include passenger services? To identify the problems that U.S. all-cargo airlines face when operating abroad, we designed a questionnaire asking the airlines to catalog any such problems and assess their impact. The questionnaire was pretested with representatives of five all-cargo airlines. We then surveyed the 26 U.S. air carriers that, as of September 1995, operated cargo-only aircraft and were authorized by DOT to offer scheduled or charter international all-cargo services. We did not attempt to verify the existence of problems or their impact. As agreed with the requesters’ offices, we pledged that the airlines’ responses would be kept confidential. We received responses from 22 of the airlines, for a response rate of about 85 percent. The 22 airlines included 3 major airlines, 9 national airlines, and 9 regional airlines. These airlines carried about 60 percent of the freight carried by U.S. airlines in 1994. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in appendix IV. To examine the actions taken by U.S. all-cargo airlines and the U.S. government to resolve the airlines’ problems abroad, the questionnaire asked respondents to describe their efforts to settle the problems and evaluate the assistance they received from DOT and the State Department, if any was requested. We also interviewed officials from DOT’s Office of International Aviation and the State Department’s offices of Aviation Programs and Policy and Aviation Negotiations. To describe the disposition of cargo issues during policymaking and bilateral aviation negotiations, we reviewed relevant documents from DOT and the State Department, including DOT’s May 1989 statement of air cargo policy and April 1995 statement of international aviation policy, and spoke with DOT and State Department officials. We also reviewed applicable laws and reviewed U.S. aviation agreements concluded between January 1989 and March 1996. In addition, we reviewed the detailed notes of aviation negotiations recorded by representatives of the Air Transport Association (ATA) who were present at the discussions. We also interviewed DOT and State Department officials about aviation policymaking and bilateral negotiations. Our questionnaire asked survey respondents to evaluate the performance of these agencies in meeting their needs. Finally, we interviewed representatives of individual U.S. all-cargo and passenger/cargo airlines, the Air Freight Association (AFA), ATA, and the National Air Carrier Association (NACA). To examine the possibilities for negotiating air cargo services separately from broader negotiations that include passenger services, our questionnaire asked respondents for their views. For this issue, we also interviewed officials representing the U.S. government, U.S. airlines, foreign governments, the European Union, and aviation trade associations. We also provided copies of a draft of this report to the departments of Transportation and State for their review and comment. Our work was conducted from August 1995 through September 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. U.S. all-cargo airlines reported that they encounter many of the same types of problems in doing business at overseas airports that we identified in a prior study. The most significant problems, such as delays in clearing cargo through customs, are related to the regulation of aviation and international trade by foreign government agencies. The vast majority of these problems, which make U.S. carriers less effective competitors in the international marketplace, occur at airports located in Latin America and the Asia/Pacific region. The U.S. all-cargo carriers noted that they often accept these problems as a cost of operating at the airports involved or attempt to resolve them without the U.S. government’s assistance in an effort to preserve good relations with the host country. Foreign airlines also face problems in doing business in the United States. However, foreign airlines have reported fewer problems doing business here than U.S. airlines have reported having abroad. In cases in which DOT’s or the State Department’s assistance was requested, most all-cargo airlines indicated that they were generally satisfied with the agencies’ efforts. Nevertheless, some all-cargo airlines indicated that they were not aware of DOT’s or the State Department’s ability to provide assistance. Finally, DOT’s gathering of information on doing-business problems has not been comprehensive because the agency has not notified all all-cargo airlines of its efforts. As we earlier found with major U.S. passenger/cargo airlines, U.S. all-cargo airlines report a variety of obstacles in doing business abroad that raise their costs and impair their operating efficiency. The 22 airlines that responded to our survey of U.S. international all-cargo carriers reported experiencing such problems at 107 foreign airports. The respondents indicated that these problems significantly affected their operations at 81 of these airports, many of which are located in 9 of the top 10 U.S. international airfreight markets for 1994. These problems include (1) regulation by foreign governments, such as delays in clearing cargo through customs; (2) restrictive policies and inadequate services at foreign airports; (3) restrictions on ground-handling operations, such as limitations on loading and unloading cargo; and (4) limitations on how airlines can market their services in local markets. These problems affect airlines of all sizes providing both scheduled and charter services, although they may have a greater economic impact on small airlines. According to DOT officials, however, many of the problems cited by the survey respondents did not reflect discrimination against U.S. airlines but affected all airlines operating at the airport. Appendix II summarizes the 22 U.S. all-cargo airlines’ reports of significant problems in doing business and the number of airports at which they occur. The problems cited most often by airlines involve regulation by foreign aviation authorities and regulation by government agencies that have no direct jurisdiction over aviation but do have rules affecting all-cargo airlines’ operations. These regulatory impediments, cited by 13 airlines at 50 of the 81 airports at which airlines reported significant problems, were identified as occurring more frequently in Latin America and the Asia/Pacific region than in other regions. Problems involving regulation by aviation authorities include burdensome administrative requirements and delays in obtaining flight permits. Problems stemming from the actions of agencies with no direct jurisdiction over aviation include delays in clearing cargo through customs and restrictions on the ability of U.S. airlines to operate trucks for pickup and delivery services. Burdensome legal and administrative requirements were deemed a significant problem by six airlines. These airlines contend that these requirements limit their flexibility to serve their customers and raise their operating costs at 25 foreign airports, increasing the costs that they then must pass on to their customers. For example, one airline complained that the aviation authorities of one Latin American country required it to purchase liability insurance from one of the country’s national insurance companies for its aircraft operating on routes to that country, even though the aircraft was already insured by a U.S. company. Likewise, two of these airlines maintain that foreign governments in Latin America and the Asia/Pacific region require excessive documentation from carriers before allowing them to inaugurate service at their airports, imposing a burden in terms of both personnel costs and management oversight. In addition, these requirements, airlines report, can be applied in a discriminatory manner by foreign government agencies to reduce the competitiveness of the U.S. airlines’ services. According to 10 of the airlines, foreign governments also frequently limit access to their markets by refusing to grant the U.S. airlines the authority to operate on routes authorized by bilateral agreements (cited as affecting operations at 17 airports) and by delaying the issuance of permits to overfly their territory or serve their airports (cited as affecting operations at 15 airports). These problems were cited at airports in 5 of the 10 largest U.S. international airfreight markets in 1994. U.S. airlines contend that foreign governments take such actions to protect their national airlines from competition from U.S. carriers. According to some all-cargo airlines, difficulty in obtaining flight permits, although also a problem for scheduled airlines, is particularly troublesome for all-cargo airlines offering charter services because they often must operate flights on short notice to meet the needs of their customers. According to the charter airlines we surveyed, some countries in Latin America require notice of proposed charters far in advance of when the airlines typically receive requests for flights. The airlines said that if they cannot obtain the appropriate authorization in sufficient time before a proposed flight, they frequently lose the business to competing, often local airlines, thereby losing revenues and dissatisfying customers. Seven all-cargo carriers also report that curfews banning airlines from operating during night hours at 10 key airports in Latin America, Europe, Canada, and the Asia/Pacific region limit their ability to provide their customers with adequate levels of service. According to two of these airlines, curfews disproportionately affect all-cargo carriers because these airlines typically operate during night hours in order to meet delivery deadlines. Prohibitions against night operations, according to these airlines, reduce all-cargo airlines’ flexibility to schedule their flights. These curfews affect all the airlines operating at the airports, including the national carriers of the host countries. DOT officials noted, however, that U.S. and foreign airlines complain about similar curfews at airports in the United States. Eight airlines characterized problems stemming from the actions of government agencies at 22 airports, mostly in Latin America and the Asia/Pacific region, that have no direct jurisdiction over aviation as adversely affecting their operations to a significant extent. Most of these agencies are responsible for regulating trucking or administering international trade. Chief among the problems cited are restrictions on U.S. carriers’ ability to operate trucks for pickup and delivery services and delays in clearing cargo through customs. According to three U.S. all-cargo airlines, several countries require that locally owned companies pick up and deliver or transport freight shipments. Such restrictions, according to the airlines, limit their ability to provide time-sensitive delivery of packages, or deliver packages at all, at 12 foreign airports. For example, one airline reported that one Latin American government prohibits foreign companies from operating trucks with a capacity of more than 4 1/2 tons, reserving that sector of the market for its nationals. Because the airline cannot use a larger vehicle to transport shipments, its delivery of time-sensitive shipments slows and the airline’s cost of operations increases. Five airlines also reported difficulties and delays in clearing customs at 10 airports. For example, one airline attributed the slow handling of time-sensitive shipments and excessive costs to the airports’ having too few customs inspectors and cumbersome clearance processes. Such delays frustrate one of the primary purposes of air cargo transportation—speedy delivery. DOT officials noted that problems in clearing customs tend to be nondiscriminatory and also affect local airlines. According to U.S. airlines, the cumulative effect of such problems is to reduce their operating efficiency and make their services less competitive with those of foreign airlines. In November 1994, we reported that many of the problems deriving from regulation by foreign government agencies with no direct jurisdiction over aviation often arise from the country’s overall trade policies. Fourteen airlines reported problems linked to airports’ policies and services. These included problems such as discriminatory or excessive landing fees, discriminatory payment terms for airports’ services, and discriminatory or excessive fuel prices. For example, two airlines reported paying landing fees they considered excessive or discriminatory at the airports of one Latin American country. One airline complained that it must pay about $3,000 for landing services at these airports, while fees for equivalent services for the same type of aircraft at airports in nearby countries range between $750 to $1,500. In addition, the other airline contends that these high fees are discriminatory because that country’s national carriers pay about $2,000 less in fees than U.S. and other foreign airlines pay. Both airlines stated that the high fees impose a financial burden on their operations and render their services less competitive than the national airlines’. Survey respondents alleged similar problems at a total of 48 foreign airports, mostly in Latin America and the Asia/Pacific region. Thirteen U.S. airlines responding to our survey reported problems with ground-handling at 31 foreign airports, most of which are located in Latin America and the Asia/Pacific region. Ground-handling is a significant element of operations, affecting airlines’ costs and ability to compete effectively and to serve customers. U.S. airline representatives stated that such restrictions raise operating costs, lower the quality of airlines’ services, and reduce efficiency. Problems with cargo-handling include restrictions on airlines’ ability to load or unload cargo themselves, discriminatory or excessive cargo-handling fees at those airports where airlines are prohibited from performing this task themselves, and inadequate warehouse facilities. U.S. carriers particularly object to being forced to use monopoly handling agents—frequently the local carrier against whom they compete—because they contend that such agents provide less efficient, reliable, and responsive service than they could provide themselves. For example, one airline complained that the government-owned monopoly ground-handling agent at the airports of one Asian country it served gives priority services to national aircraft at all times and that the workers providing the services do not work as efficiently for foreign airlines as for national airlines. Cargo carriers want the freedom to perform their own ground-handling services or to contract for them among several competing agents. Inadequate warehouse facilities at foreign airports also pose problems, according to two U.S. all-cargo airlines. One U.S. airline reported that the government’s warehouses at a Latin American airport are very disorganized because they lack space, equipment, and trained personnel. The problems include not separating stored cargo according to the airline, not designating an area for dangerous goods, not having proper weighing equipment, and not designating a storage area for live animals. Because of these problems, the airline reported that it had to pay numerous claims for lost and damaged cargo and that various delays in departures had occurred. This airline further stated that all foreign airlines are affected by this problem. Restrictions on how all-cargo airlines can market their services and distribute their freight within local markets also affect the airlines’ ability to operate efficiently. Four U.S. cargo airlines characterized such problems at 13 airports as significantly affecting their operations. These problems include restrictions on local advertising and the number of sales offices and on the number and type of personnel the airlines can employ. For example, one airline complained that it could not obtain adequate office space at the airports it serves in one Latin American country. According to this airline, the airports lack infrastructure, so the airport authorities lease only a very limited amount of space to the airlines, on a “first-come, first-served” basis. As a result, the airline reported, it cannot establish adequate sales offices at the airports and is impeded in its ability to solicit business. In an Asian country, a U.S. airline reported that the government required it to use the government-owned forwarders to distribute its freight at the two airports it served. According to the affected airline, both forwarders provided poor service, charged high fees, and required the airline to pay a commission of 5 percent on its revenue at both airports. This created a financial burden for the airline, and it eventually sold its operating authority to this country. Foreign airlines also complain of problems in doing business in the United States. The most common problems cited by foreign airlines in our November 1994 report were excessive costs and inadequate facilities and services at U.S. airports. Officials from another foreign airline noted that foreign carriers are subject to a number of U.S. local sales and income taxes, while U.S. airlines are exempt from such taxes in several foreign countries. Two foreign airlines that we spoke with believe that the U.S. Customs Service lacks the personnel to expeditiously process cargo at Miami International Airport, the primary U.S. gateway for trade with Latin America. These airlines also complained about inadequate security at the Miami airport’s warehouses. However, foreign airlines have reported experiencing fewer problems in the United States than U.S. airlines have reported experiencing overseas. Like U.S. passenger/cargo airlines, U.S. all-cargo airlines that have problems doing business abroad can request assistance from both DOT and the State Department to resolve them. However, 18 of the 22 all-cargo carriers responding to our survey explained that they generally have not requested the U.S. government’s assistance; rather, they have attempted to develop their own solutions to the problems or treated any additional expense caused by the problems as a cost of providing service at those locations. Most of the 10 airlines that did request assistance from either DOT or the State Department indicated that they were generally satisfied with the aid they received. Some airlines reported that they were unaware of the assistance that DOT and the State Department could offer but would like guidance on how to request such assistance in the future. Recently, DOT established a database to monitor the problems U.S. airlines experience in doing business abroad. However, because DOT relied on two industry associations to notify their members of its efforts, many carriers that were not members of these associations were unaware of the initiative and have therefore provided no information. U.S. all-cargo airlines reported they were more likely to try to resolve their problems in doing business themselves or to take no action rather than ask the U.S. government to intervene. The U.S. all-cargo airlines that have attempted to resolve their problems themselves have been only slightly successful, resolving 20 of 117 such cases. However, the settlements achieved were not always optimal from the airlines’ viewpoint. For example, one airline operating at a European airport negotiated a reduction in some landing fees that the carrier considered excessive, but other landing fees at the same airport remain high. Other attempts to resolve problems have been unsuccessful. One airline reported that after trying unsuccessfully to resolve its problems in obtaining flight permits, clearing cargo through customs, and complying with burdensome legal requirements at a Latin American airport, it decided to stop operating at that airport. Another airline, which was unable to resolve significant operating and marketing problems at two airports in an Asian country, sold its rights to fly to those airports. Some U.S. all-cargo airlines have not requested DOT’s or the State Department’s intervention because (1) they view the U.S. government’s role as limited to intervening in matters involving violations of bilateral agreements only; (2) they believe requesting the U.S. government’s intervention would be too costly or time-consuming; or (3) they have been unaware that the assistance is available. Like several U.S. passenger/cargo airlines, many U.S. all-cargo airlines do not believe it is practical for airlines to rely on the U.S. government to resolve the daily difficulties of operating in foreign countries. In addition, according to DOT and State Department officials, many U.S. airlines do not seek the U.S. government’s assistance because they believe such government involvement might harm relations with the host country. Some airlines do not request the U.S. government’s assistance to resolve problems because they usually view the problems as local or unique to the airports in question. These airlines prefer not to involve DOT or the State Department in problems they view as not involving a breach of obligations under a bilateral agreement. One airline explained that it generally attempts to work with local airport officials, the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and other carriers to remove many of these impediments to doing business. This carrier believes that the bilateral process is not an appropriate forum for resolving many of the problems that are specific to all-cargo airlines’ operations because the process is structured to address the needs of passenger services. Like U.S. passenger/cargo airlines, many all-cargo airlines do not view the formal process for filing complaints about operating problems as a cost-effective way to resolve them. They consider the formal process of requesting the U.S. government’s intervention to be too costly or time-consuming. This view is especially common among the small and mid-size airlines that have limited resources to devote to filing complaints under 49 U.S.C., section 41310, the statute under which airlines file formal complaints with DOT about their problems in doing business abroad. Of the 28 complaints filed under the statute since 1989, only 6 were filed by all-cargo carriers. According to one airline, it is also costly to request DOT’s assistance because the agency asks the airline to collect and present to it all the necessary evidence concerning a problem before the agency will attempt to address the problem. DOT officials responded that they must have reasonable assurance of a problem’s validity, as well as detailed facts, before intervening with a foreign government on a formal basis. DOT officials told us that although the number of formal complaints is small, DOT spends a great deal of time attempting to resolve complaints informally. Some airline officials were also unaware of the processes for requesting DOT’s or the State Department’s assistance to help solve problems in doing business abroad. Officials of three airlines—one small charter, one large regional, and one national airline—stated that they were unfamiliar with how to request the U.S. government’s aid but would appreciate any information on how to do so. Officials at two of these airlines were not even aware that such assistance was available from the U.S. government. Neither DOT nor the State Department systematically provides the airlines with information on the assistance it provides or guidance on the procedures to be followed in obtaining the assistance. Finally, DOT and State Department officials, including DOT’s Assistant Director for Negotiations and the State Department’s Director of the Office of Aviation Negotiations, believe that many U.S. airlines are reluctant to request their aid in resolving problems because the airlines think that the U.S. government’s involvement will be perceived by the host country as confrontational. According to DOT officials, most U.S. airlines prefer using cooperative methods to resolve problems out of fear that a foreign government will retaliate or a desire to preserve good relations with the host country. Recently, in response to a recommendation we made in our 1994 report, DOT began to collect information on the status, nature, and severity of U.S. airlines’ problems in doing business abroad and established a consolidated database on such problems to ensure that they are prioritized and given attention. However, DOT did not notify all U.S. all-cargo airlines of the system. Instead, DOT worked through the Air Transport Association (ATA) and the National Air Carrier Association (NACA) to notify their members of the database and to request information on current doing-business problems. Only 9 of the 22 air cargo carriers that responded to our survey, however, are members of either association. As a result, the airlines that are not members—mostly regional airlines—were unaware of DOT’s efforts and have provided no information. Consequently, DOT’s gathering of information about and monitoring of doing-business problems have not been as comprehensive as they could have been. For those problems for which all-cargo airlines requested the U.S. government’s assistance, DOT and the State Department had some success, according to survey respondents. The 10 all-cargo airlines that reported turning to the U.S. government for help told us of 14 cases in which the government completely or partially resolved the doing-business problem in question. However, the airlines also reported 32 cases in which the situation remained unchanged after the U.S. government intervened. Nonetheless, 7 of the 10 airlines were generally satisfied with the assistance they received from DOT or the State Department, even if the assistance provided did not resolve the problem. As we reported in November 1994, DOT and the State Department are more successful in resolving issues that come under bilateral agreements or issues that DOT has determined denied U.S. airlines a fair and equal opportunity to compete. For example, one cargo airline reported that during recent bilateral negotiations with a European country, U.S. negotiators were successful in including in the bilateral agreement a statement that prevents that country from arbitrarily assessing landing fees. The U.S. government also intervened successfully on behalf of an all-cargo airline that reported experiencing cargo-handling restrictions and discriminatory cargo-handling fees at airports in an Asian country. In response to a formal complaint, the U.S. government imposed sanctions on the foreign government, and the foreign government ceased its discriminatory practices. According to carriers responding to our questionnaire, DOT and the State Department have had less success in resolving problems that are not covered by specific, detailed provisions in bilateral agreements or that do not represent discrimination against U.S. airlines. For example, according to one U.S. airline, the departments were not able to resolve restrictions that limited the airline’s operations to the less commercially desirable of a foreign city’s two airports. According to another airline, DOT and the State Department have been negotiating for 2 years with a Latin American country to drop a restriction that reserves for national companies and denies to others the right to transport international freight shipments in vehicles with a capacity of more than 4-1/2 tons. Some survey respondents said that their problems remain unresolved: Charter airlines, for example, continue to have difficulty obtaining flight permits at Latin American airports. As we previously reported, DOT and the State Department must consider numerous factors, including the severity of the problem and the United States’ aviation trade relationship with the country involved, in attempting to resolve U.S. airlines’ doing-business problems. At these agencies’ disposal are several statutory and regulatory tools that authorize retaliatory measures. For example, the United States may deny the schedule of flights to the United States proposed by a country’s carriers or may impose other sanctions. Such stern measures have limited application, however, in addressing practices that do not clearly violate bilateral accords or discriminate against U.S. carriers. DOT interprets its authority under 49 U.S.C., section 41310, as requiring a finding of a violation of a bilateral accord or other instance of unfair or discriminatory treatment before it may impose sanctions. We found in our November 1994 report that efforts by DOT and the State Department to resolve the range of doing-business problems that do not overtly discriminate against U.S. carriers are complicated by several constraints, such as the need to negotiate with foreign governments that are often protecting their own carriers from increasing U.S. competition. According to U.S. all-cargo airlines, their success is limited by a range of problems in doing business at key airports in Latin America and the Asia/Pacific region. Such obstacles increase carriers’ operating costs and can erode the competitiveness of their services. Although most U.S. all-cargo airlines are satisfied with the assistance they have received from DOT and the State Department in resolving their problems, two airlines were unaware of the assistance that the agencies could offer. Neither agency has systematically provided the airlines with information on the assistance available or guidance on obtaining access to it. In response to a recommendation in our prior report, DOT began to collect and analyze information on U.S. airlines’ problems in an effort to monitor the status, nature, and severity of such problems. However, because DOT has not collected information directly from the airlines, many U.S. all-cargo carriers are unaware of its efforts and have not provided any information. As a result, DOT still cannot effectively establish priorities and strategies to address the most serious and pervasive problems. We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation develop and distribute to all U.S. airlines information on the assistance available and guidance on the procedures to be followed in requesting aid from the U.S. government in resolving problems in doing business abroad and extend DOT’s current effort to collect information on the status and severity of U.S. airlines’ problems in doing business abroad to include all U.S. all-cargo airlines that operate internationally. We provided a draft of this report to the departments of Transportation and State for their review and comment, and they generally agreed with our conclusions and recommendations. U.S. delegations have discussed air cargo issues to some extent in their negotiations with more than three-quarters of the countries with which bilateral talks have been held since 1989. Aviation agreements reached during this period have generally expanded the opportunities for U.S. all-cargo carriers and, in some cases, have liberalized cargo services before passenger services. Nevertheless, restrictions persist. As a remedy, most U.S. all-cargo airlines advocate separating negotiations of cargo rights from broader negotiations that include passenger services. Separate discussions about air cargo services could allow negotiators to focus on all-cargo airlines’ unique operating requirements, according to airline representatives and DOT and State Department officials. Some all-cargo airlines also believe that such discussions could ensure that progress on cargo services is not delayed because of disputes about passenger issues. In addition, several industry observers believe that successful negotiations on cargo issues could create momentum to achieve progress on contentious passenger issues in several U.S. aviation relationships. Airline representatives and DOT and State Department officials also point out several obstacles to such an approach. Most foreign countries do not have major international all-cargo airlines. Instead, they have passenger/cargo airlines. In these countries, the governments might be unable to separate negotiations of air cargo and passenger services. Furthermore, U.S. negotiators would be unable to reciprocally exchange cargo rights for passenger rights, which could lessen their flexibility in negotiations and make it difficult for them to obtain the maximum benefits for U.S. all-cargo airlines. Finally, DOT and State Department officials caution that routinely holding separate cargo negotiations could impose a financial burden on the offices responsible for conducting them. DOT and State Department officials acknowledge that passenger issues historically have received more attention than cargo issues during bilateral aviation negotiations, primarily because, according to the DOT officials, passenger issues are more numerous and arise more frequently. However, these officials assert that the U.S. government has addressed cargo issues as they have arisen and has paid markedly greater attention to the interests of all-cargo airlines over the past several years, citing their success in liberalizing cargo services with several countries. State Department officials attributed this increased attention, in part, to (1) the growing importance of U.S. air trade with the countries of Latin America and the Asia/Pacific region and (2) the emergence of Federal Express and United Parcel Service alongside U.S. passenger/cargo carriers as major competitors in the international market. Our analysis of DOT’s and the Air Transport Association’s (ATA) records showed that the United States conducted formal aviation negotiations with 56 foreign governments between January 1989, the year that DOT issued its air cargo policy statement, and March 1996. U.S. officials discussed air cargo issues in at least one negotiating session in talks with 44 of these governments. However, most negotiating sessions focused on passenger issues; about one-third of the more than 300 individual sessions dealt with air cargo issues. According to DOT officials, passenger issues receive more attention than cargo issues during negotiations because they arise more frequently. The officials said that foreign countries frequently focus on passenger issues and such issues are the principal reason talks are held. They noted that certain kinds of disagreements that continue to arise in the passenger context, such as pricing issues, have not been raised with respect to cargo for many years. During this period, the United States amended or inaugurated 74 aviation agreements. Thirty-two of these agreements contained specific provisions governing all-cargo services. Of these, 18 agreements specify separate routes for all-cargo services and 21 agreements define the intermodal rights available to airlines. The United States has also signed “open skies” agreements with 12 European countries, under which most bilateral restrictions are eliminated, and an agreement with Canada substantially liberalizing the transborder aviation market. Finally, in March 1996, the United States successfully completed negotiations with Japan that dealt exclusively with air cargo services. Our analysis showed that air cargo issues were addressed in the majority of the negotiating rounds with 20 countries: Argentina, Brazil, China, Fiji, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Macau, Malaysia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, and Thailand. U.S. negotiators reached agreements with most of these countries that generally expanded service opportunities for U.S. all-cargo airlines. For example, the agreement concluded with the Philippines in 1995 (1) increased the number of routes for all-cargo services and the number of U.S. airlines allowed to operate on those routes, (2) granted U.S. carriers the unrestricted right to change the type of aircraft for flights beyond the Philippines, and (3) ensured that U.S. airlines could operate pickup and delivery services in the Philippines. These service enhancements gave Federal Express the operating freedom necessary to establish a viable hub at Subic Bay. Still, 24 of the 32 U.S. agreements or amendments negotiated since 1989 that incorporated provisions on cargo services contained various restrictions on these services. Currently, aviation agreements governing cargo services in 7 of the 20 leading international airfreight markets for the United States—including the two largest markets, Japan and the United Kingdom—directly restrict the operations of U.S. all-cargo carriers. These seven restricted markets accounted for about one-third of the U.S. international freight traffic in 1994. Restrictions include limits on (1) the number of airlines allowed to operate on all-cargo routes, (2) the ability of U.S. airlines to carry freight to and beyond the other country, and (3) the frequency of all-cargo airlines’ flights. Agreements with some countries do not guarantee the right of U.S. airlines to perform their own ground-handling services or to truck cargo off airport property for final delivery. State Department and DOT officials note, however, that bilateral aviation agreements that restrict cargo services also tend to restrict passenger services. For example, the U.S. agreements with Japan and the United Kingdom restrict both types of service. A State Department official also said that these agreements are considerably more liberal than the agreements they amended or replaced. Appendix III contains a list of the countries with which the United States has negotiated since 1989 and a table describing specific provisions of the agreements governing air cargo services. Most U.S. air cargo carriers that we surveyed believe that the stated U.S. international aviation policy—embodied in DOT’s 1989 and 1995 policy statements—addresses their interests in liberalizing and expanding international air cargo services. Eleven of the 19 airlines that stated their views on this issue believe that, overall, DOT’s policy addresses their principal concerns to a moderate or great extent. However, only 7 of 20 respondents believe that DOT has been similarly effective in representing their interests during bilateral aviation negotiations, while 4 respondents believe that DOT has done little or nothing to represent their interests. Respondents were split as to whether the State Department has represented them well or poorly. Seven of the 12 airlines stating their views on this issue believe the State Department has represented them to a little or some extent, while 5 respondents believe the State Department has represented their interests to a moderate or great extent. Thirteen of the 19 airlines that stated their views advocate that the United States routinely hold bilateral talks dedicated exclusively to negotiating cargo rights, while only 4 support the continuation of comprehensive negotiations. DOT’s policy enunciated in the 1995 statement considers such an approach to negotiations appropriate when it can foster the comprehensive liberalization of aviation relations. While acknowledging that DOT and the State Department have been more responsive to the needs of all-cargo carriers when negotiating aviation agreements over the past several years, several of these airlines assert that under the current framework of comprehensive talks, negotiators primarily focus on the needs of passenger/cargo carriers, often to the detriment of all-cargo carriers’ interests. In addition, some of these airlines believe that the traffic needs of all-cargo operations are sufficiently different from those of passenger/cargo airlines to justify separate negotiations. Some carrier representatives also contend that when substantial consensus on cargo issues is reached during negotiations, progress on an agreement can be delayed because of disputes about passenger services. According to some U.S. all-cargo charter airline representatives, separate negotiations could facilitate agreement on specific provisions guaranteeing the airlines liberal operating rights. Many U.S. aviation agreements either do not contain a formal provision governing charter services or require that charter services be performed according to the rules of the country in which the traffic originates. According to DOT and airline officials, the regulation of charter services by foreign governments can reduce the viability of such services. For example, Argentina requires that its national airlines have the first opportunity to carry charter freight originating in Argentina. Finally, the two major international all-cargo carriers believe that separately negotiating cargo services would recognize the intrinsic link between the growth of international trade and liberalized air cargo services. Because of this connection, these airlines think air cargo services should be considered as a trade issue rather than as a transportation issue and that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) should play a more active role in negotiating cargo rights. One of these airlines holds that the best way to promote the liberalization of international air cargo services is by convincing U.S. negotiating partners of the benefits of increased air trade to their economies. Similarly, a State Department official pointed to the U.S. talks with Brazil in 1995 as an example of the influence that a country’s broader trade interests may have on the outcome of negotiations. The United States and Brazil amended the aviation agreement to increase the number of scheduled and charter all-cargo flights permitted, as well as to expand passenger service opportunities. Brazil’s growing air export trade to the United States, which includes shipments of automotive parts and other finished industrial products, was among the incentives for Brazil to liberalize air cargo services, he explained. DOT officials, on the other hand, believe that it was Brazil’s desire for enhanced passenger services to the United States that allowed the United States to obtain cargo rights in return. The six major U.S. passenger/cargo airlines with significant international operations are opposed to any negotiating policy that would routinely exclude them from air cargo talks with foreign countries. Two of these airlines expressed concern that separate talks for air cargo rights would place their own cargo operations at a competitive disadvantage. Several U.S. passenger/cargo airlines are dedicating increasing resources to transporting freight in international markets. While most passenger/cargo carriers do not compete directly with integrated carriers in the door-to-door, express delivery market, they do compete for traditional airport-to-airport freight traffic, according to industry analysts. Two passenger/cargo airline executives conveyed their companies’ concern that the results of air cargo talks could have profound implications for passenger services by setting unfavorable precedents for issues of common interest, such as the right of U.S. airlines to serve destinations beyond a foreign country. DOT officials stated that retaining the flexibility inherent in comprehensive discussions is entirely consistent with the U.S. government’s formal policy on negotiating bilateral aviation agreements. They explained that while the 1995 U.S. International Air Transportation Policy Statement commits DOT not to forgo agreements covering only air cargo services when circumstances warrant, the 1989 air cargo policy obligates the agency generally to retain flexibility in the interest of obtaining agreements that comport with the United States’ overall economic interests. According to another DOT official, DOT has no institutional interest in holding only comprehensive negotiations. Nevertheless, DOT officials said that comprehensive negotiations have usually proved to be the most effective way to adapt to evolving conditions during negotiations with most countries. According to airline representatives and DOT and State Department officials, in some cases conducting negotiations dedicated solely to air cargo issues could foster the liberalization of air cargo services by allowing negotiators to focus on these issues. Some all-cargo airline representatives also believe that separate negotiations could prevent negotiators from forgoing agreement on cargo services because of disputes about passenger services. Finally, by negotiating cargo issues in advance of passenger issues, negotiators might develop broad areas of agreement and understanding in an otherwise restrictive relationship, creating a model for subsequent discussions of passenger issues. Despite the potential advantages, these experts point out that significant obstacles to the successful implementation of air cargo-only negotiations exist. According to several U.S. aviation officials and all-cargo airline representatives, conducting separate all-cargo negotiations could focus officials’ attention on the operating requirements of air cargo services, such as traffic rights granting carriers maximum operating flexibility to enable them to take advantage of shifting trade flows. These include rights to carry freight to and beyond foreign countries and to alter flight routings according to market demand. They also include intermodal rights and the freedom to transfer freight between aircraft at foreign airports without restriction as to the size, number, or type of aircraft involved—so-called change-of-gauge rights. Finally, negotiators could give increased attention to the doing-business problems of air cargo carriers if discussions were separated. According to one airline representative, these problems often cannot be adequately addressed during comprehensive talks because of crowded negotiating agendas and limited time. Addressing cargo issues in advance of—and in isolation from—passenger issues could sometimes help create the momentum necessary to liberalize several bilateral relationships, according to some industry observers. Holding successful all-cargo talks in advance of more contentious discussions about passenger services, some observers explain, could create a climate of goodwill and an understanding that differences over passenger services could be resolved. These observers believe that this approach would foster liberalization much as did the deregulation of the domestic U.S. airline industry during the 1970s. The deregulation of domestic cargo services in 1977 led to the development of new service options for shippers, most prominently overnight express delivery, and stimulated dramatic growth in domestic cargo traffic. This growth partially contributed to the confidence that passenger markets could be deregulated the following year, according to these observers. Similarly, according to this point of view, a working demonstration of successfully liberalized international air cargo markets may encourage many of the United States’ foreign trading partners to negotiate for the same benefits in international passenger markets. This view, however, has yet to be proved. In contrast to such arguments for separate negotiations are obstacles suggesting that this approach may not be routinely practical or appropriate. First, most foreign governments have little incentive to conduct all-cargo negotiations because their countries do not have major international all-cargo carriers. Even though many scheduled foreign passenger/cargo airlines also operate cargo-only aircraft, many of these airlines still carry a significant amount of cargo in the holds of passenger aircraft. As a result, their market needs are defined primarily in terms of initiating or expanding passenger services, which are their primary source of revenue, according to DOT and State Department officials. When foreign officials negotiate, they often do so with the acknowledged goal of expanding their national carriers’ passenger services. In 1995, 75 foreign carriers from 44 countries operated all-cargo services to the United States. However, many of these carriers are small and their interests are considered secondary by foreign aviation officials, according to DOT officials and industry analysts. Only three foreign all-cargo airlines serving the United States—Cargolux, Nippon Cargo Airlines, and TAMPA—rank in the top 25 international airfreight carriers. Foreign negotiators, therefore, may find it difficult to bargain exclusively on behalf of small all-cargo carriers, seeking instead to gain cargo rights from the United States in the general course of comprehensive discussions. For example, a British government representative told us that while his country’s largest passenger/cargo airline, British Airways, carries significant amounts of cargo across the North Atlantic on board its passenger aircraft, its income from cargo revenue on these routes is largely a function of the frequency of its passenger flights between the United Kingdom and the United States. A second obstacle to separate all-cargo talks is the possibility that they could reduce the flexibility of U.S. negotiators to obtain new rights for all-cargo and passenger/cargo airlines. In particular, DOT and State Department officials and passenger/cargo airline representatives believe that separating talks diminishes opportunities to exchange cargo rights for passenger rights, and vice-versa. With comprehensive discussions, negotiators can seek the best overall deal, which might mean allowing more passenger flights for foreign carriers in exchange for increased flights by U.S. all-cargo carriers, according to these officials. DOT and State Department officials with whom we spoke urged adherence, in most cases, to the current framework for negotiating, which relies on comprehensive talks, with separate negotiations available as an alternative. According to these officials, the service gains available to U.S. all-cargo carriers will usually be greater when agreements arise from flexible, comprehensive talks. They cited as examples the agreements reached with Canada, Mexico, and several of the European countries with which the United States now has an “open skies” agreement. Moreover, according to the officials, the interests of large integrated all-cargo airlines are often dissimilar to those of smaller, traditional freight carriers. This diversity of interests suggests that cargo-only talks may not, in many cases, be more effective than comprehensive negotiations in meeting the needs of all members of the community of all-cargo airlines. Indeed, two of the all-cargo airlines that responded to our survey supported this assessment. These carriers expressed the fear that the specific interests of the large integrated all-cargo airlines—Federal Express and United Parcel Service—are likely to receive favored treatment in cargo-only negotiations. Finally, according to DOT and State Department officials, the U.S. government would incur additional costs by negotiating passenger and cargo rights separately. Each round of negotiations requires advance preparation to identify goals and develop strategies to achieve them. Importantly, preparation also includes consultation with the affected parties, including carriers, airports, and local communities. Aviation negotiations can involve multiple rounds of talks conducted over several months and demand negotiators’ attention before, during, and after the actual talks. Finally, when the foreign government hosts the discussions, typically for every other round, both DOT and the State Department also incur often significant travel costs. The U.S. negotiators that we spoke with are hesitant to pursue a policy of routinely separating passenger and cargo negotiations. They expressed concern that they would have insufficient time and funding to split each round of talks so that cargo issues and passenger issues would receive equal amounts of attention. Air cargo talks with Japan, concluded in March 1996, illustrate both the advantages and disadvantages of negotiating exclusively for the expansion of cargo services. One major advantage, according to DOT and State Department officials, is that the negotiations addressed cargo issues on their own merits and were not overshadowed by the contentious passenger issues in the relationship. Under the terms of the U.S.-Japan agreement, the United States received Japan’s consent for an additional U.S. airline to begin all-cargo services to Japan; for United Parcel Service to expand its service to and beyond Japan; and for Federal Express, United Airlines, and Northwest Airlines to route their flights more flexibly. However, the agreement also focuses attention on the difficulties inherent in concluding similar agreements with other countries. First, the United States and Japan were able to hold cargo negotiations because their relationship—unlike U.S. relationships with other countries—allows the cargo needs of each to be considered separately and distinctly from the passenger needs, according to DOT. Each country has at least one major all-cargo carrier, and each has passenger/cargo carriers that operate cargo-only aircraft on bilateral routes. Second, both the U.S. and the Japanese governments had concerns over the precedent that an agreement on cargo services could set for subsequent passenger talks. Japanese negotiators, in particular, did not wish to set a precedent in which the United States could regard expanded cargo rights as a precursor to similarly expanded passenger rights, according to State Department officials. Foreign negotiators representing other major U.S. trading partners are likely to express similar reservations. With Japan, the United States originally sought an agreement that would allow all-cargo carriers the maximum flexibility to respond to business opportunities with little regulatory interference. During the discussions, U.S. negotiators argued that granting the right to carry freight to destinations beyond Japan to U.S. all-cargo carriers is essentially a trade issue and that significant economic benefits would accrue to Japan from unreservedly allowing such flights. However, Japan has not accepted this reasoning, and it limited the ability of U.S. all-cargo airlines to carry cargo originating in Japan from Japanese points to points beyond Japan. One U.S. airline representative expressed concern that continuing such limits on U.S. carriers’ right to serve destinations beyond Japan may have set an unwelcome precedent for passenger services. Finally, concluding the U.S.-Japan agreement on all-cargo services has not proved to be a catalyst for accelerating progress on passenger service issues. In fact, the recent agreement on air cargo services has not prevented conflict over the pre-existing traffic rights of U.S. all-cargo airlines. The two countries resumed negotiations on passenger issues on April 29, 1996, but the talks have been at an impasse since then because of a dispute over Japan’s refusal to approve flights by two U.S. passenger/cargo airlines—United and Northwest—and Federal Express through Japan to other destinations in Asia. The United States believes these flights are authorized under current U.S.-Japan agreements. On July 16, 1996, DOT proposed to prohibit Japan Air Lines from carrying cargo from points elsewhere in Asia on its scheduled all-cargo services through Japan into the United States unless the Japanese government approved Federal Express’s request. As of September 25, 1996, the negotiations had achieved little progress on these issues and DOT had reaffirmed the U.S. intent to resolve outstanding disputes over the rights of U.S. carriers to operate flights beyond Japan before undertaking passenger negotiations over new opportunities. Two modifications to the U.S. strategy have been under discussion within government and the industry. First, conducting multilateral negotiations has been offered as an approach that could create broad areas of agreement among countries and provide an incentive for countries with relatively restrictive aviation policies to liberalize them as part of a regional agreement. Second, continuing to allow carriers and other affected parties to directly observe discussions has been advocated as a means to help ensure that all parties have an opportunity to communicate their interests to U.S. negotiators. While each modification offers promise, each also raises problems. According to DOT officials, conducting multilateral talks could, in principle, help create negotiating efficiencies by focusing federal negotiating resources on talks with several like-minded countries at one time and could promote liberalization on a large scale. DOT’s 1995 U.S. International Air Transportation Policy Statement identified the negotiation of such multilateral agreements as an option in obtaining further liberalization of U.S. aviation relations. Some DOT officials and industry experts believe that concluding a liberal multilateral agreement on cargo services might heighten foreign governments’ interest in liberalizing passenger services. By offering significantly expanded access to the vast U.S. market, such an approach could motivate countries with restrictive aviation policies to join their neighbors in concluding a relatively liberal agreement with the United States. U.S. officials have attempted to gauge foreign interest in holding multilateral negotiations. In 1991, in 1994, and again in 1996, DOT and State Department negotiators held exploratory talks with representatives of the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union (EU). During the earlier talks, U.S. and EU officials reached an understanding on a broad array of cargo issues, which included deregulating pricing, eliminating numerical restrictions on the number of all-cargo airlines allowed to operate, allowing for an unrestricted amount of cargo to be transported between the United States and the EU, and a host of doing-business issues. Nonetheless, the Commission no longer supports holding multilateral talks on cargo services in advance of and in isolation from discussions on passenger issues, believing this approach to be counterproductive to its ultimate goal of negotiating air services between the United States and EU member states. The Commission embraces the concept of multilateral negotiations and has obtained approval from a majority of its member states to proceed with phased, exploratory talks with the United States. However, according to DOT officials, the Commission does not have the authority to negotiate traffic rights—a disabling limitation in their view. DOT officials believe that there is interest in seeking air transport liberalization through regional associations, including those in Asia and Latin America. However, both U.S. and foreign officials said that none of these groups has yet achieved a consensus favoring such an approach. Formalizing and continuing a recent U.S. policy that allows “direct participation” by carriers in comprehensive negotiations could help ensure that agreements reflect all carriers’ needs and interests. While observers do not play a formal role in the negotiations, their presence allows them to state their case directly to DOT and State Department negotiators and to react immediately to any foreign country’s positions that might adversely affect their ability to serve markets in and beyond the country in question. According to a State Department official, one advantage to formalizing direct participation would be that “carriers couldn’t complain later that they were not part of the process.” However, DOT and State Department officials have three primary concerns. First, smaller affected parties could be disadvantaged in articulating their needs because they often would be unable to send a representative to negotiations. Large, resource-rich carriers could conceivably send a representative to every negotiation, while smaller carriers could not afford the considerable travel and other staff costs of doing so. Second, U.S. delegations composed of large numbers of U.S. airlines interested in serving the relevant market may intimidate foreign negotiating teams representing weak foreign airlines. Finally, large numbers of observers may discourage negotiators from openly discussing substantive matters, increasing the frequency of so-called chairmen’s meetings to resolve key issues. Such closed meetings could create an atmosphere of mistrust between the U.S. chairman and the observing parties. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed U.S. air cargo airlines' reported problems in doing business abroad, focusing on the: (1) nature of the airlines' problems; (2) actions the affected airlines and the Departments of Transportation (DOT) and State have taken to resolve these problems; (3) extent to which the U.S. government has addressed air cargo issues in policymaking and during bilateral aviation negotiations; and (4) possibilities for separating negotiations of air cargo services from broader negotiations that include passenger services. GAO found that: (1) the 22 U.S. all-cargo airlines responding to a survey reported a range of obstacles to doing business abroad which impair their competitiveness and reported that they experienced significant problems at 81 foreign airports; (2) the most pervasive problems were related to regulation by foreign governments and foreign aviation authorities, with most of these problems occurring at airports in Latin America or the Asia-Pacific region; (3) many of the carriers have attempted to resolve such problems themselves, although some have requested assistance from DOT or State, while others were unaware that assistance was available; (4) U.S. delegations have raised air cargo issues with more than three-quarters of the countries with which they have conducted bilateral talks since 1989; (5) restrictions persist in spite of the resulting expansion of opportunities for U.S. all-cargo carriers; and (6) 13 of the 22 airlines advocate separating negotiations of air-cargo rights from broader negotiations that also address passenger rights, but this approach may not be practical or appropriate on a regular basis. |
The world’s biggest jigsaw puzzle may have to be solved by hand, as technology struggles to piece together millions of Stasi files ripped to shreds in the dying days of the East German regime.
The government-funded Stasi records agency confirmed this week that it had had to halt an €8m (£7m) project to digitally reassemble the contents of 23 bags stuffed with torn-up documents detailing the activity of the secret police, because the scanning hardware it was using was not advanced enough.
Germans piece together millions of lives spied on by Stasi Read more
Over the 40-year existence of communist East Germany, the state security ministry built one of the most tightly knit surveillance states in recent history. The Stasi, short for the Ministry for State Security, created a vast web of full-time agents and part-time snoops, with some historians calculating that there was one informant per 6.5 citizens.
After German reunification in 1990 an archive was set up to allow the system’s victims to access their records, but not before stacks of paperwork were shredded or ripped up by hand to cover up the regime’s activity.
While there are no official figures on the volume of destroyed records, researchers estimate that 10-40% of the archive’s contents may be lost to history.
Since the early 1990s workers employed by the agency have managed to piece together more than 1.5m pages of destroyed files by hand, shedding light on East Germany’s use of doping in sports, links between the Stasi and West Germany’s Red Army Faction terrorist group, and the persecution of writers critical of the regime.
The reassembled files brought to light the story of a young Austrian theology student who shopped several fellow students to the Stasi after they had confided in him their plan to escape across to the west. As a reward, the informant was handed a professorship at the University of Jena.
Until 2015, the Stasi records agency outsourced some of the manual puzzling work to the federal refugee agency in Bavaria.
But workers have struggled with files that were torn up more than four times. “Once you have nine snippets per A4 sheet of paper, the human brain really can’t keep up,” said Dagmar Hovestädt, the spokesperson for the Stasi records agency.
A so-called ePuzzler, working with an algorithm developed by the Fraunhofer Institute and costing about €8m of federal funds, has managed to digitally reassemble about 91,000 pages since 2013. However, it has recently run into trouble.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest A member of the Stasi Museum shows folders with records gathered by an informer for the secret police. Photograph: Felipe Trueba/EPA
For the last two years, the Stasi records agency has been waiting for engineers to develop more advanced hardware that can scan in smaller snippets, some of which are only the size of a fingernail.
The ePuzzler works by matching up types of paper stock, typewriter fonts, or the outline of the torn-up page. It has struggled with handwritten files that were folded before being torn, leaving several snippets with near-identical outlines.
The ePuzzler has also required human assistance to feed in paper snippets and check over the completed jigsaw puzzle, further slowing down the process.
“We currently don’t have a scanner that we can work with,” said Hovestädt, adding that her agency was hopeful that technological progress would allow the archive to resume reassembling destroyed records this year.
The Stasi records agency said its attempt to virtually piece together the history of a surveillance state was without a precedent in the world. “We are dealing with a research project that requires us to develop a technology entirely from scratch.”
In the meantime, a small team of manual puzzlers continue their work of matching up more crudely ripped files by hand. ||||| When East Germany's secret service was dissolved, it left behind 16,000 bags of ripped documents. The employees of the Stasi Records Agency have spent the last 27 years piecing them back together.
(Photo: Sukhada Tatke/Pacific Standard)
Jana Florczak leads the way across a long, quiet corridor with dull grey walls and jimmies open the heavy lock of a giant door. A few steps later, she opens another lock, and enters a storage room. It's dark and dank, as subterranean, temperature-controlled storage rooms tend to be. But when the light is turned on, relics from the Soviet-era past of former East Germany are revealed: a blue sack here, a brown bag there, another bag over there, all filled with torn pieces of documents left behind by the Stasi—the secret police of the former German Democratic Republic.
ADVERTISEMENT Thanks for watching! Visit Website
Florczak, the chief archivist of these materials, unravels a thick piece of twine binding one of the sacks, and throws the blue bag open. "Too many tiny pieces," she says, lifting a bunch and letting them slip through the gaps of her fingers like sand. Lifting one such piece from the bag, she shakes her head: "Cannot be used. Look, as small as a fingernail."
To make sure the enormity of her project is not lost on me, Florczak adds: "Ten storage rooms like this. Full of bags. In this office alone."
ADVERTISEMENT Thanks for watching! Visit Website
ADVERTISEMENT Thanks for watching! Visit Website
This building in Frankfurt (Oder), a town with red-brick Gothic buildings on the Polish border, had been occupied by the GDR army for about 40 years in the latter half of the 20th century. It is now the Stasi Records Agency—an upper-level federal agency of Germany that preserves the archives and researches the Stasi's work. Today, 12 such offices exist across the 16 district towns that had been ruled under the GDR regime.
Florczak proceeds to a shelf and reaches for a thermometer. "We need to maintain the temperature so the room remains cool. If moisture gets in, everything will be destroyed," she says. She opens another bag and peers into it. "This should work."
Her boss, regional chief Ruediger Sielaff, who accompanies her, leans over. "As long as the paper has been torn only up to three times, we can use it," he says, signaling that the blue bag is now ready to make its way out. The reconstruction of these schnipsel, or scraps of paper, is now, Sielaff says, "open."
After World War II, a battered Germany was cleaved apart, and became a rake-off between the Allied forces. West Germany, or the Federal Republic of Germany, was established in the three Allied zones of occupation held by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. East Germany came to be controlled under the Eastern Bloc, a pro-Soviet Union State. It was here, in 1950, that the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, or Ministry of State Security, popularly known as the Stasi, came into being. Conflating the dual roles of secret police and secret service, the Stasi surveyed the populace to weed out "counter-state activities" and kept Western influences, such as media, music, cinema, and others, at bay.
In the 40 years that they monitored East Germany, the Stasi ran an apparatus with as many as 91,015 full-time employees and 190,000 "unofficial collaborators"—in other words, informers—to ferret around the GDR population of about 17 million people. Spies and informers were everywhere: at school, on the street, in neighborhood shops, even at home: Some scholars have estimated that, at one time, there was an informer for every seven East German citizens.
The storage room. (Photo: Sukhada Tatke)
The furtive Stasi infiltrated not only physical spaces but also terrorized people's interior lives. The organization tapped telephones, opened mail, and bugged homes. Family members told on each other, friends turned into moles, and spies were spied on. The Stasi even captured people's body odor in bottles and devised ingenious listening and viewing gadgets; they hid cameras in the unlikeliest of places, like in ziplocks and ties. The inevitable recalcitrance from citizens that followed had severe consequences: Thousands of dissenters of the GDR regime were jailed, persecuted, and killed.
Despite their technical prowess, the Stasi's modus operandi of dealing with its constant influx of information was simple and tedious: Everything was meticulously recorded on paper, filed, and stored away in cupboards.
When the Stasi was dissolved in 1990, protesters surrounded the Stasi offices and demanded access to its archives. Hemmed in, the Stasi staff started destroying its vast network of documentation; they burned paper, pulped it, and shredded it until their shredders became ineffective. With little time left to completely obliterate evidence of their panopticon methods, employees started tearing pages by hand and putting them in bags to be burned later. The plan was never realized: In Frankfurt, Erfut, and Berlin, citizen activists occupied local and regional Stasi offices to prevent the destruction of files.
The Stasi Records Agency was founded in the early 1990s, when it began the gargantuan task of piecing together the torn pages, a jigsaw puzzle so large that it could take decades before it is entirely solved, if at all. The numbers provide an entry point into understanding the extent of the Stasi's infiltration into citizens' lives: The organization left behind roughly 16,000 bags, each bag containing between 2,500 and 3,500 fragments of torn pages.
So far, 1.5 million pages from 500 bags have been manually reconstructed, indexed, and archived. There are still 400 to 600 million fragments, adding up to 40 to 50 million pages, that remain to be built.
The blue bag has made the journey from storage to the SRA's reconstruction room, where the torn pages are pieced together. Chunks of paper from the top of the bag have been laid out on a U-shaped surface, crafted by joining several long tables.
On a warm Wednesday morning in June, Elke Kinzel, who retired last year from the agency, finds herself in this familiar space. She has returned to the office to attend the screening of a documentary—called Schnipsel—on the reconstruction of the papers, of which she is the star. Unable to resist the temptation to visit her former workspace, she darts toward the table. A torn page with elegant handwriting catches her eye. She looks over it carefully, and then begins to pick up one scrap after another, surveying it and putting it back. A few attempts later, she grins. She has found the missing piece, which she assiduously sticks to the torn page with sellotape.
Pieces of Stasi documents before they are reconstructed. (Photo: Sukhada Tatke)
"It's some information on an unofficial collaborator, with the code name 'Buffel,'" Sielaff says. (Unofficial collaborators were given code names by the Stasi to protect their identities.) "The document says he was on his way to meet someone he was spying on."
There is a method to the madness, a method that Kinzel devised. She separates the torn pages into four parts: top left, top right, bottom left, and bottom right. A different section of the table is reserved for the middle scraps. Then, pieces are arranged based on handwriting, typed font, and kind of paper, among other factors.
Kinzel, in 25 years of a career that Sielaff describes as being "the main jigsaw puzzle lady," has unjumbled 37 bags. Among the first recruits, she started working in May of 1992 and spent 15 to 20 hours a week painstakingly sifting through pages. "Sometimes, I got so engrossed that I forgot to go home," she says.
Didn't it ever get boring? "How could one not get engrossed in such kind of work?" she asks. "It is like you have been given fragments of people's lives and are asked to tell their story in great detail," Kinzel adds, with the look of a proud parent.
Once the contents of a bag are pieced together in the puzzle room, the product journeys to its final destination before the archives: a room where the assembled pages are filed and organized according to location, the name of the spy involved, and the name of the victim, among other organizing factors. A file on a victim might contain correspondence between the victim and his family, or photographs, or reports on meetings between the victim's spy and Stasi officials, complete with bills of what they ate and drank at the meeting.
Papers that have been put together in the reconstruction room. (Photo: Sukhada Tatke)
In this room, Monika Horn is peering into a file and stops at a page where a small portion is missing. "You see? Sometimes, we just don't find the absent bit, but we have to keep looking. It's very important that the contents of a particular bag always remain together," she says. Horn says she spends anywhere between six months and a year on one single bag, working about 15 to 20 hours a week only on filing.
Today, work is on to reconstruct the pages digitally at the SRA's Berlin headquarters. Since the Agency began using reconstruction software in 2007, fragments from 23 bags have been scanned and virtually reconstructed as a pilot project. However, some documents still have to be reconstructed by hand because the technology is still, at this point, limited.
While each employee has a unique role in piecing together the great puzzle of the past, all are trained to recognize the emergency code, a red circle symbol affixed to shelves of files where the most important documents are stored. Documents pertaining to important institutions, like hospitals, schools, and churches, are housed here; those marked in red are the first to be rescued in case of a fire or flood.
"Did the Stasi have anything on me?" This is the raison d’être of the Stasi agency and archives, the question that it is piecing documents together to answer. On average, 4,500 to 5,000 applications for access to files come in every month. The Stasi Records Act of December 29th, 1991, legally grants Stasi victims access to the documents: Since the Act came into effect 26 years ago, the offices have received as many as 7.12 million applications in total, of which 3.2 million came from citizens, and the rest from historians, researchers, journalists, students, and others.
Lisa Schumann, holding a form in her hand, enters details of one such applicant into a database that scans files across all the offices: name, last name, and address at the time of suspected spying. Nothing pops up on the applicant. Not yet.
Files ready to make their way to the archives room. (Photo: Sukhada Tatke)
"There is so much that remains to be assembled, that we don't know when we will find information on this person," Schumann explains. Even if the SRA finds something on the applicant, it will take anywhere between three to six months to locate that information. "There are 1,800 people in line at the moment in this office alone," she says.
Under the Stasi Records Act, a person can apply every two years if their earlier attempt has failed to yield results. But if employees find requested information after two years, they are forbidden from contacting the victims on their own. What if they are no longer interested, or want to refrain from possible trauma that the files could cause? Sielaff explains.
This is where the most important philosophical dimension of this mammoth project kicks in. "We have to remember this is not just paper. We are dealing with people's lives that were trampled upon," Sielaff says.
Employees are especially reminded of this emotional resonance when characters from the stories they are piecing together emerge in front of their eyes, apparitions from the past.
One day in 2014, Kinzel noticed a pattern. The code name "Thomas" kept cropping up in various files. The informer to whom this code name was assigned, Aleksander Radler, a theologian, spied for more than two decades on hundreds of people; information given by him ran up to 2,600 pages. "When we found his identity, he was a priest in Sweden," Siefall says.
When the story became public, three people who had been under Radler's radar visited the archives to read the files. "Seeing those victims take in the extent of betrayal by their friend, that moment was the most emotional in my entire career," Kinzel says.
By providing a window into a protracted dark moment in Germany's history, the Stasi archives are, in part, an attempt at contrition; they also seek to prevent similar incursions on German citizens' privacy in the future.
On this June morning in the Frankfurt Oder office, almost all of the 60-odd employees have gathered for a screening of Schnipsel, the film portraying their work. After the half hour they spend in the dark watching the documentary—at times giggling at seeing themselves on the large screen; watching in awed silence at others—they applaud. When the lights come back on, I ask if they feel they played an important role in retelling a crucial chapter of their national history. Most shrug and smile.
Their boss, Sielaff, breaks the silence: "It is not often that, at the end of a dictatorship, you get to study their files. I hope no other generation has to go through this." | "Sometimes, I got so engrossed that I forgot to go home," Elke Kinzel told Pacific Standard back in August. "How could one not get engrossed in such kind of work? It is like you have been given fragments of people's lives and are asked to tell their story in great detail." Hopefully Kinzel, who started reassembling shredded records from the East German secret police 25 years ago, still finds the work rewarding because the Guardian now reports the scanning hardware the German government paid $9.6 million for in 2013 to automate the reassembly of shredded Stasi files is no longer up to the task. “We currently don’t have a scanner that we can work with,” a spokesperson for the Stasi Records Agency confirmed this week. Since the reunification of Germany in 1990, employees of the Stasi Records Agency have pieced together more than 1.5 million pages of destroyed files, allowing victims of the secret police to access their records. Since being brought on in 2013, the ePuzzler has pieced together about 91,000 pages. But the agency says the remaining file scraps are too small—down to the size of a fingernail—for the scanner to work properly. It also has difficulty with pages that were handwritten and folded before being torn. Now the job of reassembling the remaining files either must wait on new technology or rely on the hands and eyes of people like Kinzel. (A teen wrote to his favorite radio program. Then the Stasi came calling.) |
Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 501(c) establishes 27 categories of tax-exempt organizations. The largest number of such organizations falls under Section 501(c)(3), which recognizes charitable organizations. Generally, charities pay no income taxes on contributions received, but they can be taxed on income generated from unrelated business activities. These charities and related parties may be subject to several additional IRS excise taxes and penalties for certain actions, such as not filing a required tax return. Generally, taxpayers may deduct the amount of any contributions to charities from their taxable income. By 2000, IRS had recognized 1.35 million tax-exempt organizations under Section 501(c), of which 820,000 (60 percent) were charities. Social welfare, labor, and business leagues accounted for 280,000 (21 percent) of the tax-exempt organizations. The remaining organizations (about 19 percent) were exempt under other Section 501(c) categories. At the end of 1999, the assets of Section 501(c)(3) organizations approached $1.2 trillion and their annual revenues approached $720 billion. The term charitable, as defined in the regulations that underlie IRC Section 501(c)(3), includes assisting the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancing religion; advancing education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. An organization must apply for IRS recognition as a tax-exempt charity that strives to meet one or more of these purposes. In general, a charity is to serve broad public interests, rather than specific private interests. Generally, public charities are required to file annual information returns with IRS that are also available to the public. The larger charities file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax. Smaller charities—with gross receipts of less than $100,000 and total assets of less than $250,000—are allowed to file an abbreviated Form 990-EZ. The smallest charities, with less than $25,000 in gross receipts, and certain other types of organizations, such as churches and certain other religious organizations, are not required to file. The Form 990 is to be filed within about 5 months of the end of the charity’s accounting year, with extensions available. Form 990 has 105 line items on 6 pages, as well as 45 pages of instructions. The data on various finances and activities provide a basis for reviewing whether the organization continues to meet the requirements for tax exemption. The form also has two schedules: Schedule A and Schedule B. Schedule A covers several areas, including compensation of employees and independent contractors earning over $50,000 annually; lobbying activities; sources of revenue; and relationships with noncharitable exempt organizations, such as social welfare organizations. Schedule B is to be filed by certain charities that receive contributions of $5,000 or more from one or more donors. Charities may be required to file other forms in specific situations. Appendix I describes the Form 990. IRS and various stakeholders—such as the states and “charity watchdogs”—oversee charitable operations to protect the public interest in part by reviewing the Forms 990. Certain charities, including those receiving federal and private grants, obtain independent financial audits. To the extent that such audit information is available in conjunction with Forms 990, those doing the oversight have more information on the financial status of the charities, and individuals can make more informed choices about donations to specific charities. Recognizing the importance of public oversight and a “free market”, where charities compete for donations, Congress expanded public disclosure of and access to the Form 990. Such oversight is important to help support charities, inform donors about how their money is spent on a charitable purpose, and stem potential abuses. Our objectives in this review were to analyze the adequacy of (1) publicly reported Form 990 data on charity spending in facilitating public oversight of charities, (2) IRS’s oversight activities for charities, and (3) IRS’s data sharing with state agencies that oversee charities. For the spending data reported by charities, we interviewed IRS officials and experts (e.g., AICPA, the Urban Institute) to learn about charities’ reporting of expense data on the Form 990 and about independent financial audits. We reviewed studies such as those done by the Urban Institute, academicians, and the Chronicle on Philanthropy to better understand the expense data. We analyzed expense data reported by charities on the Form 990. IRS’s Statistics of Income (SOI) Division had available data on charity expenses, but those data only covered up to 1998 and did not include data on “joint-cost allocations” (e.g., allocating selected expenses between education and fundraising). To obtain at least 2 years of joint-cost data, we purchased filing years 1998 and 1999 data from the Urban Institute which contracts with IRS to digitize Form 990 data for the full population of charities that filed Form 990. For some large charities, primarily hospitals, expense data such as by line items of the Form 990 were not available to the Urban Institute. Thus, only joint-cost data and aggregate data for expenses, assets, and revenues for 1999 are presented throughout our report. Because several sources of data were used, data are presented by filing, tax, and fiscal years in this report. For IRS oversight of charities, we talked with responsible IRS officials to identify oversight processes when charities apply for recognition of their tax-exempt status and when IRS examines Forms 990 filed by charities. For these types of oversight, we reviewed documentation on IRS’s processes and criteria used to review applications and examined Forms 990. We also analyzed related data for fiscal years 1996 through 2001. For applications, such IRS data included the number and types of applications received and their dispositions. For examinations, such data focused on the number and types of examinations and their results. In addition, we contacted other federal agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, to understand the types of oversight of charities that they conducted and the extent to which they coordinated that oversight with IRS. Appendix V discusses our selection of the agencies and our work. For IRS data sharing with states, we interviewed IRS officials and reviewed IRS documents. We did the same at the National Association of State Charity Officials (NASCO), which represents 38 states that oversee charities to protect public interests. We participated in an October 9, 2001, annual NASCO conference. At the conference, we asked state officials about their oversight and coordination with IRS or others. We talked with Treasury, IRS, and state officials about the tradeoffs of changing the law to allow IRS to share oversight data (e.g., examination results) with state charity officials. We also reviewed related studies and articles. For all three objectives, we collected documents from and talked with officials at various organizations. We talked with officials at the Joint Committee on Taxation about its reports in 2000 on disclosure of tax data on charities and on public, IRS, and state oversight. On the basis of referrals from IRS and NASCO, we talked with and collected documents from officials at the Council on Foundations, the Independent Sector, the GuideStar project at Philanthropic Research Inc., the Direct Marketing Association, and others that were knowledgeable about charity data, oversight, or fundraising. We reviewed documents from and talked with officials at three watchdog groups—Better Business Bureau Wise-Giving Alliance, Charity Navigator, and American Institute of Philanthropy—that oversee charities. We also asked for comments on short sections or summaries of the draft report from the organizations that provided data or perspectives on those sections. We made technical changes to the report where appropriate after receiving their comments. For example, we did not use the 1999 detailed expense data from the Urban Institute after receiving its comments. The Urban Institute did not have the necessary data to resolve certain discrepancies with the detailed data (e.g., reported line item amounts not equaling reported aggregate amount for expenses) before we issued the report. As a result, we deleted analyses of the detailed expense data for 1999 that had been in the draft report. We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., from June 2001 through March 2002, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We provided a draft of this report to IRS for review and comment. IRS’s and Treasury’s comments are in appendices VI and VII, respectively. Although disclosure of charity spending data can facilitate public oversight, caution in interpreting the data, is warranted. No measures are available on the accuracy of the expense data and substantial discretion in allocating the expenses makes use of the data problematic in comparing charities. Given such data limitations, public oversight of charities cannot rely solely on the expense data reported on the Form 990. A key potential use of data on charities’ spending is to show what portion is spent on charitable purposes through program services (i.e., efficiency). In aggregate, the data show that from 1994 through 1998, charities allocated, on average, 87 percent of their spending to charitable program services and the remainder to fundraising and general management,suggesting a high-level of spending efficiency, as shown in figure 1. These percentages did not vary much by size of the charity. Although Form 990 expense data are a principal source to support donors’ informed judgments about whether to support a charity, the accuracy of the expense data has not been measured. At the same time, however, IRS officials and watchdog groups have expressed concerns about potential or actual inaccuracy in Form 990 expense data. Because efficiency is a criterion that donors may use in selecting among charities, charities have an incentive to report their expenses in a manner that makes them appear to be efficient. IRS has discovered instances in which charity fundraising expenses have been underreported because charities have “netted” such expenses against the funds raised. According to IRS, fundraising expenses include fees paid to professional fundraisers as well as in-house expenses (e.g., salaries) for fundraising. For example, a charity might contract with a professional fundraiser to raise donations. The fundraiser might raise $250,000, charge the charity a fee of $150,000, and give the charity the remaining $100,000. When reporting to IRS, the charity “nets fundraising expenses” by reporting the $100,000 as a direct public contribution and does not report the $150,000 retained by the professional fundraiser as a fee. Such reporting does not comply with IRS instructions, under which the charity should report the full amount raised ($250,000) as the direct public contribution and the fee retained by the fundraiser ($150,000) on line item 30 of the Form 990. As with netting of fundraising expenses, IRS has found that some charities have misreported professional fundraising fees as “other” expenses, but has not measured the extent to which charities do this. In these cases, a charity would report professional fundraising fees on line item 43 of the Form 990, along with other expenses, rather than on line item 30 for such fees. IRS requires charities to itemize expenses on 22 different line items on Form 990 and expressly prohibits reporting professional fundraising or other fees on line item 43 with “other” expenses that are not appropriate for the accompanying 21 line items. Available data do not show the extent to which charities may fail to properly itemize their expenses such as for professional fundraising, but “other” expenses represent a significant portion of all reported expenses. Our analysis showed that for 1994 through 1998, on average, 26 percent of all expenses were reported as “other” expenses, as shown in figure 2. Despite not knowing the extent of misreporting, IRS has been sufficiently concerned that it has taken steps to better ensure charities properly report their expenses, especially for fundraising. Regarding netting of fundraising fees, IRS clarified its reporting instructions in 2001 and publicized the changes. Regarding reporting fundraising (and “other” fees) on the designated Form 990 line item rather than on the “other” expense line item, IRS believed its instructions were clear, but has reiterated them in its Continuing Professional Educational text for fiscal year 2002 and in training for its examiners. IRS makes this text available to tax practitioners and the public to inform them about the proper application of tax laws and regulations. IRS is instructing its examiners during fiscal year 2002 to check whether fundraising is being properly reported and to impose penalties where appropriate. IRS plans to convene a taskforce to consider what projects should be undertaken involving fundraising and Form 990 reporting, but the details have not yet been determined. Within the charitable community, various organizations have been concerned about the accuracy of charitable expense reporting, with concerns often focusing on fundraising expenses. A 1999 Urban Institute study of Form 990 expense data found that 59 percent of 58,127 charities that received public donations either reported zero fundraising expenses or left this line item blank on the Form 990. Using the same criteria as the Urban Institute, our analysis of the Form 990 data from 1994 through 1998 found the number, on average, to be 64 percent, as shown in figure 3. We did similar analyses for all charities, regardless of whether they received public donations. From 1994 to 1998, 69 percent of all charities reported either no fundraising expenses or left this line item blank (line item 15) on the Form 990. We further analyzed how many charities reported no fees paid to professional fundraisers on the Form 990 from 1994 through 1998. On average, over 93 percent of all charities reported either no fees paid to professional fundraisers or left this line item blank (line item 30) on the Form 990. that so many charities would report no fundraising expenses, but acknowledged that several factors could account for low fundraising expenses. For instance, it noted that the smaller the amount of funds raised, the less likely charities may be to incur fundraising expenses. However, the Urban Institute did not indicate the amount that could be raised without incurring fundraising expenses. Thus, it would not be surprising for some charities, such as small ones or newer ones, to have little or no fundraising expenses. The Urban Institute also notes that charities that raise revenues through “special events and activities” (Form 990, line item 9c) may legitimately report little or no fundraising expenses. When we accounted for those reporting special event expenses among those represented in figure 3, we found that, on average for 1994-1998, 34.8 percent of all remaining charities that received contributions did not report fundraising expenses. In addition, various articles have discussed problems in charities’ reporting of fundraising expenses. For example, a May 2000 article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy discussed how some charities leave the “public in the dark” by not reporting fundraising expenses. The article discussed how some charities in three states reported no fundraising expenses on the Form 990, although state records indicated that they had such expenses. Charities have discretion in determining how to charge expenses to program services as well as allocating expenses among the Form 990 functional categories for charitable program services, general management, and fundraising. The differences in the methods used can result in two charities with similar activities allocating their expenses differently among the functional expense categories on the Form 990. Figure 4 shows the three functional expense categories and the related lines for specific expenses. Although the three expense categories differ, their boundaries overlap. Fundraising activities may be mixed with program services, especially when a charity provides education related to its charitable purpose in a fundraising solicitation. Similarly, general management expenses may be mixed with the delivery of program services and fundraising. Charity employees may, for instance, spend time managing the daily support of the charity, spend time participating in raising funds, and spend time providing program services. We analyzed the portions of total program service expenses (line item 13 of Form 990) during 1994 through 1998 that came from (1) grants and specific assistance (line items 22 and 23) that can only be charged to program service expenses to meet the charitable purpose or (2) expenses such as salaries, travel, etc. (line items 24 through 43) that can be charged to the program service, fundraising, and general management categories. It is important to recognize that expenses such as salaries and travel can be charged to program services when they are incurred in connection with meeting the charitable purpose. Table 1 shows the analysis of the types of expenses comprising program service expenses. Charities can use different methods (which are not reported on the Form 990) for charging and allocating expenses. Such differences can affect comparisons across charities. Thus, charity watchdog groups, organizational donors, or others may draw inappropriate conclusions when comparing the expenses charged to program services or allocated across the three functional categories. Neither IRS nor the professional accounting accrediting bodies require or prohibit particular allocation methods. In general, any method for charging or allocating expenses should be reasonable, logical, and consistently applied given the circumstances and facts. Organizations that provide funds or grants to charities are likely to provide guidance or requirements for charging and allocating expenses and to require independent financial audits. Among the methods for allocating joint fundraising costs, the three methods mentioned routinely by accounting professionals and in accounting texts are the: (1) physical units method, (2) relative direct cost method, and (3) stand-alone joint-cost allocation method. Each method can produce a different financial “portrait,” and no one method is appropriate for all circumstances. The method used determines the allocation of expenses among fundraising, program services and general management. For example, suppose a charity contracts with an external fundraiser to conduct a mail solicitation in which the letter combines program service (education) and fundraising text over 100 lines. The fundraiser’s $1 million fee covers expenses for identifying potential donors and creating and mailing the letter. The charity must devise a way to equitably allocate the fundraiser’s expenses. One way is to use the physical units method of allocation. The physical units method uses identifiable, measurable, and calculable physical aspects of fundraising instruments to allocate expenses. In this example, the physical aspects are the number of text lines in the solicitation letter. If 10 lines of text covered fundraising and 90 lines covered program services, an allocation based on counting lines would allow the charity to allocate $100,000 to fundraising and $900,000 to program services. However, this method of allocation may be inappropriate if most of the expenses incurred actually related to the use of the donor mailing list—the value of which relates more to fundraising than to program services. The stand-alone joint-cost-allocation method might provide a more reasonable allocation in this circumstance. If this method were used, and if $750,000 of the fundraiser’s fee covered the value of its mailing list, at least $750,000 of the $1 million in total costs would be for fundraising and no more than $250,000 would count for program services. Thus, the method used can materially influence the allocation of a charity’s expenses. In March 1998, the AICPA published Statement of Position 98-2 (SOP 98-2) “Accounting for Costs of Activities of Not–for–Profit Organizations and State and Local Governmental Entities That Include Fundraising” to provide guidance on the allocation of joint activities, such as those when program services and fundraising are involved. SOP 98-2 was intended to provide consistent, clear, and detailed guidance for reporting joint activities. SOP 98-2 sets three criteria (purpose, audience, and content) that must be met to allocate such joint-cost expenses to the Form 990 program services or management and general categories, rather than to fundraising. The three SOP 98-2 criteria are: Purpose: should show that fundraising activities will help meet a program service or general management purpose. Audience: should show that donors are selected to meet a program service or a general management purpose rather than to contribute only funds. Content: should show that the content of the joint activity supports the charity’s program service or general management purpose. According to AICPA, if any of these criteria are not met, then all expenses should be allocated to fundraising. All three criteria require a call for action in order to allocate expenses to program services. A call for action makes general requests for involvement with an activity or cause, regardless of whether the individual contributes funding to those requesting the involvement. Absent a call to action, SOP 98-2 recognizes the activity as fundraising, and no expenses should be allocated to program services. IRS added a checkbox to the 2001 Form 990 to indicate whether SOP 98-2 had been used to account for joint costs. IRS noted that the purpose was to facilitate the understanding of those reading the Form 990. IRS also is asking for comments on whether the use of SOP 98-2 should be required for certain filers (such as those above a specified amount of assets) to ensure greater uniformity in expense allocations and better comparison of fundraising expenses across charities. According to an AICPA official, charitable organizations may use this guidance, regardless of their accounting method. Caution in relying on Form 990 expense data for public oversight of charities is also warranted because spending efficiency can vary for a number of reasons. Charity watchdog groups, GuideStar, the Urban Institute, and others have spoken against reliance on spending efficiency ratios as the sole measure of a charity’s worthiness. The expense data and related efficiency ratios (such as program service expenses compared with all expenses) do not provide much perspective on other attributes of charities, such as how well they accomplish their charitable purpose, regardless of the amounts spent. Charity watchdogs have evolved to help monitor charities and enhance public oversight. In general, within the resources they have, these watchdog groups use the Form 990 data and other available data to analyze aspects of selected charities. These watchdog groups analyze spending efficiency ratios, but note limitations that could mislead the public on which charities are and are not doing well. Spending efficiency fluctuates with factors such as the popularity of the cause, age of the charity, and type of charitable activities. For example, an established, well- known charity may spend more money on fundraising than a newer charity. A charity also may have wide swings in its spending for charitable purposes if, for instance, those purposes are affected by sudden changes from events such as natural disasters. Also, a charity saving funds to build a facility to serve its charitable purpose may have no program service expenses until adequate funds are raised to begin the project. When evaluating a charity, the public also considers how well a charity accomplishes its charitable purposes, which is not measured by spending data. However, measuring accomplishments and comparing charities on that basis is difficult to do according to the Independent Sector, the Urban Institute, and others (such as academicians). Given the wide diversity in the charity community, no standard rules have been devised to guide charities in reporting accomplishments. The Form 990 has a section that asks charities to report what was accomplished with the program service expenses; IRS’s instructions allow discretion on reporting those accomplishments. Other standards that the charity watchdog groups have suggested for evaluating charities include the manner in which the charity governs itself, raises funds, informs the public, accounts for its finances, prepares budgets and financial documents, and has independent audits or reviews. Each of these standards can be viewed as contributing information that can be useful for evaluating charities. Determining the adequacy of IRS’s oversight of charities is difficult, in part, because IRS has little data on the compliance of charities, and because IRS generally has not established results-oriented goals for its oversight of charities against which to measure progress. Concerns also arise with the adequacy of oversight because IRS has not kept up with growth in the charitable sector. IRS staffing for overseeing tax-exempt organizations fell between 1996 and 2001 while at the same time the number of new applications for tax exemption and the number of Forms 990 filed increased. By shifting staff, IRS has continued to process new applications and, as a consequence, has generally decreased its examinations of existing charities. IRS has recognized that its oversight of charities and other tax-exempt organizations is limited and is formulating plans to measure tax-exempt organizations’ compliance levels and improve its oversight activities. Because IRS does not have an accurate picture of charities’ compliance and it is unclear how its plans would yield such data, IRS lacks key information for making decisions on how much charity oversight is needed, the amount of resources needed for the oversight, and how to improve its use of available resources. In addition, IRS’s plans for improving its oversight activities generally do not define what results it intends to achieve in overseeing charities. IRS oversight of charities primarily consists of two activities. First, IRS reviews and approves applications filed by charities for the recognition of tax-exempt status. Second, IRS annually examines a small percentage of the annual returns filed by charities. Through these activities, IRS tries to ensure that charities merit the recognition of a tax-exempt status as well as the retention of it. In carrying out these two functions, IRS generally is not responsible for taking adverse actions or even suggesting improvements in a charity’s operations based on evidence about how well a charity spends its funds or meets its charitable purpose. Rather, IRS focuses on other issues related to the tax exemption for charities. For instance, in reviewing applications for recognition as tax-exempt charities, IRS focuses on whether applicants plan to undertake activities that meet the criteria for tax-exempt status and that adhere to standards such as restrictions on private benefits accruing to charity officials. Similarly, when examining charities’ Forms 990, IRS checks for compliance with specific requirements applicable to charities, such as meeting a recognized charitable purpose. On the basis of discussions with IRS and state officials, oversight of charities’ efficiency and effectiveness is more likely to be accomplished through the public’s decisions about which charities to support and through states’ efforts to ensure that charities do not abuse their charitable status. As for oversight of applications, IRS revenue agents review the applications of organizations seeking tax-exempt status as charities. If an application is approved, IRS provides a letter to the charity approving its tax-exempt status. Comparing fiscal years 1998 through 2001, the number of applications for charity status submitted to IRS has increased from about 54,000 to about 59,000, or about 9 percent, as shown in table 2. Over all 4 years, the number of applications denied stayed below 100. (See app. III for a description of the application process.) In examinations, IRS seeks to ensure that charities meet federal tax requirements. In examining a return, the revenue agent requests and reviews information from a charity to check the accuracy of items on the return and to verify that a charity is operating to meet a charitable purpose. As shown in table 3, comparing fiscal years 1996 through 2001, the number of annual returns (Forms 990) increased from about 228,000 to about 286,000 (25 percent) while the number examined dropped from 1,450 to 1,237 (15 percent). Thus, IRS examined a smaller percentage of returns and charities—-dropping by 2001 to 0.43 percent and 0.29 percent, respectively. (See app. IV for a description of the examination process.) In addition, examinations are taking longer. (See app. IV for the results.) For fiscal years 1996 through 2001, the time required to examine charity returns nearly tripled when a charity agreed to changes proposed by IRS and increased about seven times when a charity disagreed. IRS officials did not know the reasons for such increases in time and were concerned. Given the concern, IRS has started analyzing ways to better select the most noncompliant returns for examination. The date for completing the analysis was not set, as of March 2002. At least three related reasons help explain the decline in the number of charity examinations. First, IRS has had to adjust the level of charity oversight given many other priorities involving all other types of taxpayers. Second, the resources devoted to oversight dropped for fiscal years 1996 through 2001. Last, IRS moved revenue agents from doing examinations to processing the increased application workload. IRS has many other priorities as the agency that collects the proper amount of revenue to fund the programs that Congress and the executive branch have approved. For example, to deal with millions of individual and business taxpayers, IRS has established four operating divisions organized around the type of taxpayer—Wage and Investment, Small Business/Self-Employed, Large and Mid-Size Business, and Tax-Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE). TE/GE deals with charities, many other types of exempt organizations, pension plans, Indian tribal governments, and other types of government entities. Each of these activities competes for staffing and funding. Furthermore, although TE/GE has the major charity oversight role among federal agencies, its oversight is limited. The staffing devoted to IRS’s exempt organization function and oversight has declined in recent years. IRS was unable to provide the staffing levels for reviewing charity applications and examining the Form 990. However, from fiscal years 1996 through 2001, total staffing for the exempt function has fallen from 958 to 811, or about 15 percent. For application and examination oversight of all exempt organizations, the staffing fell from 609 to 546, or about 10 percent. A 1997 IRS memorandum pointed out that the staffing level for the entire organization that is now TE/GE had been essentially flat since its creation in 1974 (2,075 in 1974 to 2,123 in 1997) while the workload in terms of the size of the sectors that it regulated had doubled. IRS also shifted revenue agents from doing examinations to help process the increasing application workload. Because all applications must be processed and oversight staff had not increased, IRS moved agents from doing examinations. In fiscal year 2001, IRS took steps to hire about 40 additional staff to help process applications, which would allow revenue agents to return to doing examinations. Given increased workload and declining resources, IRS officials are developing an approach to better gauge the extent and types of compliance issues for tax-exempt organizations and to improve their oversight strategies. However, the current approach would not provide information on compliance problems of the full charitable community. Nor does it define the overall results IRS hopes to achieve in a manner that would facilitate strategic investments of resources and that can be used to assess IRS’s overall progress in improving its oversight strategies. IRS’s new approach is to study segments of the tax-exempt community, that is, market segments, to better understand existing compliance issues. Through these studies, IRS intends to develop indicators of compliance for 35 selected market segments and analyze ways to address compliance problems. According to IRS, the results of the market segment studies are intended to help refine the selection criteria for identifying noncompliant returns for examination as well as help identify other strategies to improve compliance such as additional guidance, clearer instructions, or correspondence on apparent noncompliance. Understanding compliance problems and measuring compliance among the various types of charities also is intended to help determine where to focus resources. As of February 2002, about half of the selected segments dealt with a wide variety of tax-exempt organizations that were not charities and about half dealt with various types of charities such as those for hospitals, colleges, and churches. It was not clear how IRS would use the results to get a picture of compliance across all charities, even though charities account for most of the applications and Forms 990. Without an understanding of the extent and nature of compliance problems across all charities, IRS will have difficulty in making data-driven decisions about the strategies for improving oversight as well as the level of oversight and resources needed. IRS plans to start work on these market segments as resources and data allow. Due to resource limitations, IRS believes that at the present rate the completion of all planned studies will take until fiscal year 2008. During fiscal year 2002, IRS plans to work on six segments. IRS officials said that they selected segments based on experience and judgment. As part of IRS’s overall performance management system, TE/GE has developed a plan to guide its operations. That plan covers TE/GE’s responsibilities, including those for charities. The plan specifies, for instance, the number of employees to be assigned to each activity, the number of applications and examinations IRS expects to process, and how long such activities take, and the satisfaction of tax-exempt organizations with IRS’s services and its employees. For fiscal years 2003 and 2004, TE/GE has proposed staffing increases in two initiatives for known concerns. Although the proposed increases do not focus on charities, their implementation might assist IRS’s charitable oversight. One initiative calls for adding 20 staff to work on improving the quality and quantity of IRS data and studying uses of non-IRS databases. The second initiative requests 30 additional staff to enhance IRS’s examination presence in the exempt organization community. IRS officials said both initiatives would require similar increases in staff during future years. Although TE/GE’s plan and initiatives provide an understanding of what IRS intends to do with its staff and other resources, IRS has not identified what longer-range results it intends to achieve for charities. The planning principles in the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and incorporated into IRS’s Strategic Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management process call for agencies to define the measurable results they are attempting to achieve, generally over several years. This approach is intended to ensure that agencies have thought through how the activities and initiatives they are undertaking are likely to add up to a meaningful result that their programs are intended to accomplish. The TE/GE plan does not, for instance, provide goals for improving the compliance levels of tax-exempt organizations as a whole or for charities in particular. The plan also does not discuss the basis for IRS’s judgment that the proposed initiatives are the best ways to improve compliance. IRS officials said that longer-range planning could be useful. They noted, however, that their ability to undertake significant initiatives for charities must be considered in the context of IRS’s overall responsibilities. Furthermore, they said that establishing a link between their activities and changes in charities’ compliance is challenging and this makes planning to achieve certain types of results difficult. Many agencies face this challenge. However, GPRA’s and IRS’s planning requirements suggest that the process of focusing on intended results, while often challenging, promotes strategic and disciplined management decisions that will be more likely to be effective than planning that is not results-oriented. IRS data sharing with the states to facilitate state oversight of charities is limited in two ways. First, IRS does not have a process to proactively share data that it is allowed to provide to states, such as data on the denial or revocation of tax-exempt status. Second, federal law generally prohibits IRS from sharing data with states about its reviews of applications for recognition of charities and its examinations of existing charities. State officials believe that accessing IRS’s oversight data would help them allocate resources in overseeing charities. Because federal taxpayer data are subject to statutory confidentiality protections, a number of issues, such as security procedures to protect federal tax data, would need to be considered if data sharing were expanded. Many states oversee charities to protect the public. Although overlap exists, IRS and state oversight differs. IRS focuses on whether the charity meets tax-exempt requirements and complies with federal laws, such as those governing the use of funds for a charitable purpose rather than private gain. States have an interest in whether charitable fundraising is fraudulent and whether the charity is meeting the charitable purpose for which it was created. The majority of states oversee charities through their attorneys general and charity offices. State attorneys general usually have broad power to regulate charities in their states. These states monitor charities for compliance with statutory and common-law standards and have the option of correcting noncompliance through the courts. Furthermore, these states usually regulate the solicitation of funds for charitable purposes. Some states require professional fundraisers to register and file information on specific fundraising contracts. IRS does not have a process to proactively share oversight data with states as permitted by federal law and cannot share much of its data because of legal prohibitions. IRC Sections 6103 and 6104 govern the types of oversight data that IRS can share with states for purposes of overseeing charities. In general, to protect taxpayer confidentiality, Section 6103 prevents IRS from publicly disclosing tax return data for all types of taxpayers, unless explicitly allowed. For charities, this means IRS cannot share most data about examinations. The general restriction against disclosure stems primarily from a right to privacy. Congress only granted the explicit exceptions when it determined that the need for the disclosure of the data outweighed the right to privacy. Criminal and civil sanctions apply for the unauthorized disclosure or inspection of federal tax returns and return data. Although tax-exempt organizations also may assert a right to privacy for interactions with IRS, Congress has developed different disclosure rules and has been expanding the levels of public disclosure. The rationale for disclosure has been that the public supports tax-exempt organizations through direct donations and the tax benefits accruing from their tax- exempt status and, thus, has a strong interest in information about the organizations. Section 6104 exists to provide more disclosure about tax- exempt organizations. For charities, it provides some exceptions to Section 6103 prohibitions so that states can request access to certain IRS data, such as details on revocations of tax-exempt status, to support state oversight of charities. Table 4 shows the types of IRS oversight data that states can and cannot get. The second column indicates IRS data that are available to states, the third column indicates IRS data that state charity officials can request through Section 6104 under certain conditions, and the fourth column indicates IRS data that cannot be shared due to Section 6103 prohibitions. As table 4 shows, the appropriate state officials can obtain details about the final denials of applications, final revocations of tax-exempt status, and notices of a tax deficiency under Section 507, or Chapter 41 or 42. However, IRS does not have a process to regularly share such data. Under Section 6104, IRS cannot share these details with the appropriate state officials unless they formally request these details and disclose their intent to use the data to fulfill their official functions under state charity law. IRS is to ensure that each request is reasonable, relevant, and necessary before releasing the data. Appropriate state officials may ask IRS for details such as examination results, work papers, reports, filed statements, application documents, and other information on determinations. State charity officials can have access to such data if they prove they are an appropriate state official as evidenced by a letter from the state attorney general on the functions and authority of appropriate officials with enough facts for IRS to determine that they can access the data. State charity officials would like regular access to such data. NASCO officials—state officials in 38 states who oversee charities—said that quicker access to information on denied applications and revocations helps stop charities from continuing suspicious activity. If such data are not provided quickly, the charity can dispose of assets or change its operations. Knowing the details about the revocation can also help states track individuals who try to re-establish similar suspicious operations in other states. IRS and the state officials said that data on denials, revocations, and notices are worth sharing. However, from fiscal years 1996 through 2001, few charity applications were denied compared to the over 50,000 applications submitted annually (see table 2), and few examinations resulted in revocations or notices of deficiency compared to over 1,000 examinations closed annually (see table 3), as shown in table 5. IRS actions on charities Denied applications Revoked charities Notices of tax deficiency Data not available. IRS could not provide data on the number of notices of tax deficiency sent for taxes assessed under Section 507 as well as Chapters 41 and 42. However, the number of these notices would be less than the number of examinations that closed with a proposed assessment of any type of tax or a penalty. For fiscal years 1996 through 2001, about 140 examinations, on average, closed annually with some type of tax or penalty assessment against charities. However, IRS lacked a proactive process to regularly inform state officials of steps to be taken to request the data that are available under Section 6104. NASCO officials said many states are not clear about the rules for making these requests and about the types of details that are available. Such requests used to be sent to the district office director. IRS’s reorganization has abolished this position, and IRS has not developed a new process due to its focus on other priorities related to its reorganization. IRS plans to develop a new process. IRS officials said in February 2002 that they started compiling a list of state officials who can receive IRS data on charities. They said that a barrier has been having enough staff to develop the process and negotiate agreements with each state on requesting, transmitting, protecting, and overseeing use of the data. Afterwards, managing this data-sharing process could pose additional resource challenges, depending on how the process would work. Officials said that a proposed system could be ready to discuss with states during the spring of 2002. Although IRS and the states have a common interest in overseeing charities, Section 6103 generally prohibits IRS from sharing data with state agencies about actions, such as examinations of charities. These prohibitions apply even to IRS examinations that result when a state agency refers concerns about specific charities to IRS. Neither can IRS disclose actions on pending or withdrawn applications. State officials who oversee charities believe that Section 6103 hampers their efforts to identify charities that defraud the public or otherwise operate improperly. They offered only anecdotal information on the extent to which such charities exist, but they believed that even a few abusive charities should be pursued because the betrayal of public trust could adversely affect the support given to all charities. At the annual NASCO conference in October 2001, state charity officials offered favorable comments about IRS’s outreach and education efforts, but pointed to problems created by IRS not being able to share data on pending and closed examinations and on pending and withdrawn applications. State officials were particularly concerned about not being able to get feedback on IRS actions on a state referral because of Section 6103 prohibitions. IRS officials said that state referrals are productive to examine, but IRS only can confirm receipt of the referral and whether the tax exemption was revoked. Other concerns expressed by state charity officials with IRS not being allowed to share its oversight data follow. States might waste resources investigating a charity that IRS is examining or has found to be compliant (at least in those areas that IRS examined). States might be unaware of questionable charities for a long time, which allows those charities to continue operating before the states know to pursue them. States might miss opportunities to build better cases against charities when they observe suspicious activities. State officials say that often times they cannot fully use their powers to protect the public because of the lack of readily available data. State officials said that when they learn of a suspicious activity, they need information quickly. The officials said that they could head off a suspicious activity by asserting their state powers, noting that usually the threat of action is enough. However, questionable charities tend to move from state to state. State officials cited a need to compare IRS application data with state charity registration information to quickly deal with registrants that have a questionable past. State charity officials saw an advantage in greater data sharing because IRS does not have the authority to correct the fraudulent or suspicious charitable activities that states can correct. IRS can deny or revoke the charity’s tax-exempt status. As a tax administrative agency, IRS is interested in the tax-exempt status of a charity and whether it should continue. IRS generally does not pursue charity-related fraud. If others (such as states) have proved fraud, that proof can justify denial or revocation of a tax exemption. State charity officials provided examples of how expanded sharing of examination and application data would help the states. Having examination results would allow the states to better monitor the operations of specific charities, determine their compliance with state laws, and correct any noncompliance earlier. Having data about pending and withdrawn applications could help states to be aware of potential problems and be more proactive in protecting the public. According to state officials, during the months that an application is pending, a so-called charity may not be operating to serve charitable purposes, and the public may incorrectly assume that it is tax-exempt and that donations are tax deductible. Treasury officials noted, however, that sharing examination data could be misleading. For example, the examination may involve issues unrelated to the organization’s tax-exempt status. In addition, sharing data about pending applications could result in disclosure of taxpayer information that is entitled to the confidentiality protections of Section 6103 if the taxpayer is not ultimately determined to be tax-exempt. IRS and Treasury officials said that while they see value in the principle of sharing data with states, certain issues need to be considered in determining the scope of data sharing and the protection that should govern such sharing. In addition, the officials noted that both the IRS and states would incur various costs and burdens that need to be balanced in judging which data should be shared, what benefits would be obtained, and which means of sharing data would be the most appropriate. The officials said that they were formulating a position on legislative proposals to expand access, with appropriate taxpayer protections. Treasury officials said they supported a provision included in draft legislation (H.R. 3991, Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act of 2002) that would permit IRS to share more data with state officials to assist them in administering state laws regulating charitable organizations. Issues raised by IRS regarding any legislative proposals included: Any disclosure of IRS data raises the issues of how the data are used and who uses the data. Understanding these issues is needed to make informed judgments about how best to share the data and to protect against improper disclosures. Granting access to pending applications and examination data raises more challenges compared to those for final application and examination data. These challenges relate in part to concerns about privacy and due process rights. To the extent IRS shares data on issues for which it has not completed its work, use of the data by states would need to recognize this significant limitation. Influencing this issue is the fact that the interests of IRS as a tax administrator do not fully converge with the interests of state charity officials who are not tax officials. The proper legal vehicle for expanding access to IRS’s application and examination data would need to be considered. Two basic legal provisions are Section 6103 (which prevents disclosure) and Section 6104 (which enhances disclosure). Other legislative provisions might be worth considering, depending on the types of data that state charity officials want to access and their intended uses. The legal vehicle chosen would also affect the types and rigors of the controls created to protect the data from improper disclosure and misuse. For example, Section 6103 imposes rigorous requirements on the receipt, storage, and use of the data in all forms (e.g., paper versus electronic) to protect IRS data as well as imposes various training and oversight requirements to ensure conformance to the protections. The controls and protections under Section 6104 generally are considered to be less rigorous. The level of protection that should be provided for data shared with states is an important issue. Considering the previously mentioned issues, IRS and states would need to be aware of the resources required to develop and implement agreements on how the data are to be used, who can use the data, and how the data are to be transmitted, maintained, and protected. In some cases, the resources in terms of staffing, training, space, and computer capabilities could be significant. With assets approaching $1.2 trillion and annual revenues approaching $720 billion, charities represent a substantial presence in American society. The approximately 250,000 active charities range from very small, local efforts to very large, sophisticated hospitals and universities. The public—-including the donors, media, and watchdog groups—IRS, and the states oversee charities. In this oversight framework, IRS has a limited role in considering how well charities are spending funds or accomplishing charitable purposes. Instead, the framework envisions a “free market” in which charities compete for donations, in part, based on such spending or accomplishments. Key to the proper functioning of this marketplace is the availability of reliable data, such as Form 990 data, that donors can use to make informed choices about which charities merit their contributions. However, due to suspected but unmeasured inaccuracy in some charities’ reporting of their expenses and to the range of discretion that charities have in charging and allocating expenses, Form 990 expense data alone are not adequate for public oversight of charities and should be used with caution. Recently, IRS officials have taken steps to address incidents of inaccurate expense reporting and have sought comments on one set of guidance for allocating expenses. IRS’s investment in reviewing charity applications and examining charity returns has not kept pace with the growth in the number of applications and returns. More informed decisions about the resources to devote to this investment could be made if IRS had a better understanding of the type and extent of compliance problems in the charitable community as well as a clear plan for how IRS would use its resources to achieve certain results, such as specific improvements in the compliance of charities. Neither of these is currently available, even though IRS has initiatives to increase its staffing for all exempt organizations. IRS’s plan for improving compliance will not provide data on the extent of the compliance problems and the level of oversight needed across the charitable community. Nor does the plan identify results-oriented goals and strategies, resources needed to accomplish such goals, and measures to gauge its progress toward goal accomplishment. However, given the size of the charitable community, it is unrealistic to expect that IRS would ever review more than a minor portion of charities. Furthermore, certain issues related to charities, such as the extent to which their fundraising activities may be misleading, can be addressed by state officials. Thus, helping to make state oversight of charities as effective as possible would enhance oversight of the charity community. State officials who oversee charities believe data that IRS can provide, but that often does not flow to them, as well as certain data that IRS is prohibited from sharing due to federal protections for taxpayers’ confidentiality, would make their oversight more effective. IRS and Treasury officials recently have started to discuss whether and how to share more data with the states. However, the timing and likely outcomes of these discussions is not yet clear. Also, the specific types of data that would be useful, the best means of sharing that data, the resources needed, and the taxpayer protections that would apply to the data, need to be worked out between federal and state officials. Furthermore, any proposal to change the law that restricts disclosure of certain IRS data to the states would require Congress and Treasury to make policy decisions about the balance between the privacy rights of charities and the public’s interest in more disclosure. To improve oversight by the public, IRS, and the states, we recommend that the commissioner of Internal Revenue ensures (either through the planned market segment studies or other means) that IRS obtains reliable data on compliance issues (including expense reporting) for the full charity community; develops results-oriented goals, strategies (including levels of staffing and other resources to accomplish the goals), and measures to gauge progress in accomplishing those goals when overseeing the charity community; and develops, in consultation with state charity officials, a procedure to regularly share IRS data with states as allowed by federal tax law. In addition, we recommend that IRS, in concert with the Department of the Treasury and state charity officials, identify the specific types of IRS data that may be useful for enhancing state charity officials’ oversight of charities, the appropriate mechanisms for sharing the data, the resources needed, and the types and levels of protections to be provided to prevent improper disclosure and misuse. IRS and Treasury should continue drafting specific legislation to expand state access to selected IRS oversight data and ensure adequate levels of protection for any data that would be shared. We obtained comments on a draft of this report from IRS. (See app. VI.) IRS agreed with the findings in the report and said that the agency would assist in tax administration related to charities and identified actions underway or planned to address our recommendations. We support IRS’s timely actions on our recommendations and believe IRS’s actions are generally responsive to our recommendations. As IRS moves forward with its plans, however, we encourage the commissioner of Internal Revenue to ensure that the actions IRS takes will cover all aspects of our recommendations. For instance, although IRS’s comments indicate that IRS will develop goals and measures for its oversight of charities, the comments do not mention identifying the levels of staffing and other resources needed to accomplish such goals. Although generally agreeing with our findings and indicating that actions were planned or being taken in relation to our recommendations, IRS had certain reservations about the report. First, IRS said that our draft report implied that IRS was not looking at the extent to which charities are properly reporting expenses. Also, according to IRS, the agency has established a task force to develop examination projects for reporting accuracy and that examiners have been instructed to review this issue. Our draft report did recognize these actions. However, the task force had not yet begun to develop projects at the time we did our work, and examiners look at only a very small portion of charities annually. Thus, neither of these actions indicated that IRS would be obtaining reliable overall measures of how accurately charities report their expense data. We did modify our Results in Brief discussion to more explicitly recognize that IRS is beginning to consider how to assess charities’ expense reporting. IRS also said that the draft report did not sufficiently recognize the breadth of IRS’s responsibilities related to tax-exempt organizations. In the draft, we recognized IRS’s other responsibilities both in providing statistics on the portion that charities represent of all tax-exempt organizations and by explicitly noting the range of responsibilities that fall under TE/GE and that those responsibilities compete for staffing and funding with IRS’s efforts to oversee charities. IRS’s letter provided some additional data demonstrating the breadth of IRS’s responsibilities. Finally, IRS did not believe that our draft report provided sufficient recognition of the strategic planning process followed by TE/GE. IRS was, in part, concerned that the draft report indicated it was not clear that IRS’s current plans would yield an accurate picture of charities’ compliance. IRS said TE/GE’s long-term plan to do market segment studies will provide reliable information on the compliance level of various segments of the charitable community. Our draft report described IRS’s strategic planning efforts related to its oversight of charities and thus did recognize that some planning has been done. However, as shown in the comments, those plans do not yet include such things as results-oriented goals or performance measures to assess IRS’s progress. Furthermore, although we believe the market segment studies should provide useful information on charities’ compliance, as discussed earlier, we did not see sufficient evidence to conclude that reliable data on charities’ expense reporting would be generated. In addition, at the time of our report, IRS was requesting public comments on whether it should define additional market segments to study, thus raising uncertainty over whether the currently planned work would cover all charities to yield adequate data on their compliance issues. The Department of the Treasury supports the overall goal of increasing the information IRS can share with state officials who oversee charities. (See app. VII.) Treasury also recognized that appropriate safeguards must be in place to protect the confidentiality of taxpayer information. Treasury officials said that they intend to pursue developing appropriate legislation to expand state access to IRS’s oversight data. Treasury’s plans are consistent with our recommendations. 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 report. We will then send copies of this report to the secretary of the Treasury; the commissioner of Internal Revenue; the director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. The report is also available on GAO’s home page at http://www.gao.gov. This report was prepared under the direction of Tom Short. Other major contributors were Rodney Hobbs, Daniel Mesler, Demian Moore, and Oliver Walker. If you have any questions about this report, please contact Tom Short or me at (202) 512-9110. Tax-exempt organizations recognized by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are required to annually file Form 990 or Form 990-EZ (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax) if their annual gross receipts are normally more than $25,000. Organizations that have less than $100,000 in gross receipts and total end of year assets of less than $250,000 may use Form 990-EZ. This appendix describes the Form 990 and the information requested and provides a copy of the Form 990. The Form 990 is used primarily as an IRS information return and a public information document. The Form 990 relies on self-reported information from filers. Most of the 27 types of exempt organizations that fall under Section 501(c) use this form along with Section 527 political entities and Section 4947 (a)(1) nonexempt charitable trusts. Section 6033(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) grants the secretary of the Treasury the power to use any forms or regulations to obtain financial information from 501(c)(3) organizations, such as gross income, receipts, and disbursements. In addition, this section requires all 501(c) organizations to file an annual information return. Form 990 is due by the 15th day of the 5th month of the organization’s accounting cycle, after the close of the taxable year. The Form 990 and any additional schedules can facilitate the public’s ability to scrutinize the activities of tax-exempt entities. For many years, Section 6104 (b) permitted an interested person to request a copy of Form 990 from IRS. However, Congress created Section 6104 (d)(1)(B) to allow interested persons to obtain the Form 990 from the tax-exempt organizations. Furthermore, IRS and state regulatory bodies use the financial information listed on the Form 990 to help monitor activities of charities, including their spending. The states have had significant input in developing the Form 990 and are working with IRS to implement refinements. The first Form 990 covered tax-year 1941. This 2-page form included only three yes/no questions, an income statement, and a balance sheet, although some line items required attached schedules. By 1947, the form (including instructions) had reached 4 pages, although some portions applied only to certain types of organizations. The required financial information was more extensive and incorporated a line item on the income statement for the total compensation of all officers and a $3,000 reporting threshold for contributions made to the organization. IRS also included a checkbox for affiliated organizations that file group returns. By 2001, the Form 990 had 6 pages (10 parts with 105 line items), 2 schedules (A and B) covering 13 pages, and a 45-page instruction book. Figure 5 shows the 6 pages comprising the Form 990. The tables in this appendix describe charities by expenses, revenues, assets, joint-cost reporting, and direct assistance payments. The data are from Parts I and II of the Form 990 (excluding Forms 990-EZ and 990-PF). Data for tables in this appendix represent all Form 990 filers for filing years 1994-1998. IRS’s Statistics of Income (SOI) Division provided data for filing years 1994-1998. SOI data represent a weighted sample based on a stratified random sample of all returns filed by charities in a filing year. Filing year 1998 and 1999 data were purchased from the Urban Institute. Urban Institute data represent the actual population of charity filers. Except for the section on joint-cost reporting and for 1999 totals reported in table 7, for consistency, we used SOI data exclusively for analyzing filing years 1994-1998. SOI provides data on charities by selecting a sample of each year’s Form 990 data and keypunching the sample data into a database. Filing year 1998 was the most recent year for which SOI data were available when we did our work. Data are classified into strata defined by amount of total assets. The sampling rate by stratum ranges from 100 percent for organizations with assets of $10 million or more to 0.45 percent for the smallest asset class in both 1994 and 1995. From these samples, SOI calculates a weighted total number of Form 990 filers for each filing year. Because the SOI data are based on samples, coefficients of variation should be taken into account. Sampling sizes and the corresponding coefficients of variation for selected yearly aggregate categories are presented in table 6. Because coefficients of variation are associated only with aggregate data, and because weighting factors are associated with asset data only, we do not present data other than that which are available at the aggregate level and by asset category. Financial category totals for individual filers include revenues, expenses, and assets. The yearly aggregate totals for these categories are presented in table 7. Each financial category provides information about the resources or operations of charities. Revenue amounts help describe how successful a charity is in raising funds. Asset amounts describe the resources owned by charities that support its mission. Total expenses, in relation to total revenues, help show whether the charity is generating surpluses, deficits, or breaking even from its operations during the period. Total expenses found on line item 17 of the Form 990 are comprised of three “functional” expense categories and “payments to affiliates.” The three types of functional expenses are reported in separate columns of Form 990 Part II as Program Services, General Management and Fundraising. Twenty-two specific object class expenses (line items 22-43) further break down these categories. “Other expenses” (line item 43) is for reporting expenses not captured by line items 22-42. IRS instructions prohibit reporting professional fundraising fees, accounting fees, or legal fees on line item 43, and require other expenses to be itemized on line item 43. Tables 8 and 9 describe the three functional expense categories and the “other” expense category. Functional expenses in Part II are further broken down by 22 specific object classes, including one class for “other” expenses. Each object class, except for—grants and allocations, specific assistance to individuals, and benefits paid to or for members—may be allocated across the three functional expense categories. Table 10 shows these expenses. “Assistance” describes the amount paid out by a charity in support of its charitable purpose. We define assistance as the sum of line items 22 (grants and allocations) and 23 (specific assistance to individuals), which can only be allocated to the program service expense category. Table 11 describes assistance paid out by charities in 1994-1998. The National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) classification system was developed by the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS). IRS uses NTEE codes to categorize charities by 26 major group (A-Z) classifications that are aggregated into 10 broad categories. Because of the difficulties noted above with analyzing the data at a more precise level, we do not present expense, revenue, or asset data on charities at the NTEE level. Tables 12 and 13 describe the NTEE categories. Table 14 presents descriptive data on assets and expenses by size of charity, which are defined by the amount of reported assets. Note that in all years, the largest category includes less than 5 percent of all organizations, but accounts for more than 70 percent of all expenses and more than 80 percent of all assets. IRS recognizes that charities may include a non-fundraising purpose in its solicitation materials (usually an educational component) and directs charities to disaggregate the expenses of a combined fundraising and education solicitation through joint-cost reporting. IRS forbids reporting of fundraising expenses as program service expenses. Charities that included in program service expenses (Column B—Part II, Form 990) any joint- costs from a combined educational campaign and fundraising solicitation must disclose in a separate section how the total joint-costs of all such combined activities were reported in Part II. The disaggregation of joint- cost expenses is by functional expense category—program services, management and general, and fundraising—and not by amount allocated to educational versus fundraising purposes. Since joint-cost reporting can refer to a combined educational and fundraising campaign, all charities reporting joint-costs would be expected to also report some fundraising expenses. That is not the case, as noted in the last column of table 15. In 1998 and 1999, respectively, 7.7 percent and 8.9 percent of charities reporting joint-costs did not report any fundraising expenses. Any organization that is able to satisfy the requirements defined by Congress in Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is entitled to exemption from taxation. To obtain recognition of its tax-exempt status, a charity must apply to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This appendix describes the steps in the application process for charities to be recognized as tax-exempt organizations. The steps necessary to obtain recognition of exemption from taxation as a charity involve the submission of written information to IRS. First, the entity makes a decision to meet a charitable purpose as a charitable tax- exempt organization, under the guidelines in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC. According to the Treasury regulations that underlie section 501(c)(3), “charitable” purposes include: relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of education or science; advancement of religion; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. After deciding on its charitable purpose or purposes, an entity must submit its request for recognition by completing forms for recognition of exemption from taxation. All charitable organizations are required to complete the forms for recognition with three exceptions. The forms are: Form 1023 (Application for Recognition of Exemption from Taxation). Form 8718 (User Fee for Exempt-Organization Determination Letter Request). Form SS-4 (Application for Employer Identification Number). Form 872-C, which is used for organizations wanting an advanced ruling. In addition to the application forms, the organization is required to submit the following documents: Organizational documents containing dissolution and limiting clauses,which limit the organization’s purposes to one or more of the exempt purposes in Section 501(c)(3). A conformed copy of the organization’s articles of incorporation. Four years of financial statement information (projected or actual income and expenses). The signature of an organizational officer or trustee, who is authorized to sign or another person authorized by the power of attorney to sign and send the forms. The appropriate application fee ($150 fee for organizations with gross receipts of less than $10,000 and $500 for organizations with higher gross receipts and for those seeking group exemptions). To help applicants complete the application forms, the IRS suggests the following texts as guides: Publication 557 (Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization). Publication 598 (Tax on Unrelated Business Income of Exempt Organizations). Publication 578 (Tax Information for Private Foundations and Foundation Managers). Proper preparation of an application for recognition of tax-exempt status involves more than responding to the questions. An applicant must fully describe the activities in which it expects to engage, including the standards, criteria, or other means for carrying out the activities, the sources of receipts, and the nature of expenditures. A mere restatement of purposes or a statement that proposed activities will further the organization’s purposes does not satisfy this requirement. The Exempt Organizations Rulings and Agreements function is in charge of reviewing applications for exemption from taxation. The primary determinations office is located in Cincinnati, Ohio. In addition, staff in six field offices do determinations work. These staff are determination specialists, most of whom are revenue agents, and as of January 2002 accounted for 207 full-time equivalent positions. Revenue agents review applications in order to approve or deny recognition of exemption from taxation, also known as “making a determination.” The Cincinnati office has 112 revenue agents among 10 determination groups. The other 95 revenue agents are divided among the six field offices. The Washington, D.C., office has 50 tax law specialists who also do determinations work. Once applications are received at the Cincinnati office, a decision is made on where the applications should be sent. Depending on the information contained in the application or other circumstances, the application will be: (1) processed by the Cincinnati office (e.g., applications for group rulings, foreign organizations, and cases to be expedited); (2) sent to any of six field offices; or (3) sent to the national office in Washington, D.C., (e.g., when published precedents are lacking). Applications are assigned to offices on the basis of a formula that assumes agents will close, on average, five applications per week. Before using the formula method to assign work, IRS assigned cases based on the number of agents in each office. The Cincinnati office assigned cases to other offices after estimating how much work could be done in Ohio. It stopped this practice because it could not control the backlog that occurred in other offices. Now, the office’s goal is to process all determinations in Cincinnati, except those that need to go elsewhere. A revenue agent reviews the application materials submitted by the organization to ascertain if the purpose or purposes match those allowed for charities (also known as a screening). All of the submitted documents should enable the revenue agent to conclude that the organization satisfied or failed to satisfy the particular IRC requirements for charities. IRS, generally supported by the courts, usually will refuse to recognize an organization’s tax-exempt status unless it submitted sufficient information on its operations and finances. Generally, revenue agents use the relevant tax law as the basis for approving or denying a charity application. Agents compare the application material to the applicable IRC section to check for conformity. Discussions with other agents and managers are also incorporated.During a determination screening, the agents use the following tools: Title 26, Section 501 and other relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Code. Determination Letter Program Procedures (Section 7.4.4 of the Internal Revenue Manual). The Handbook on Exempt Organizations. The Exempt Organizations Continuing Professional Education (CPE) material. Various revenue rulings and revenue procedures. A revenue agent, with the concurrence of the manager, can quickly determine that the application meets all of IRS’s criteria and can close the application on its merit. The application can be processed more rapidly if the articles of incorporation (or articles of organization) include a provision insuring permanent dedication of assets for exempt purposes. Closures on merit can take as little as 10 days, if all information needed is provided during the initial submission of the application materials. If the documentation does not allow the revenue agent to close the application on its merits, it will receive a further review. This usually occurs when: (1) an application is incomplete, (2) the budget or financial information is inconsistent, or (3) the agent cannot conclude that the organization satisfied IRC requirements for charities. While under further review, the revenue agent is required to request additional information from the applicant. When requesting information, the agent should “correctly determine the appropriate scope and depth of information required for making a proper determination.” Here are examples of the ways IRS closes determination applications submitted by charities: Approved Disapproved Withdrawn by applicant Fee not remitted If the exemption is granted, IRS issues a favorable determination letter (Letter 1045) to the charity. If the determination is a proposed denial of the tax exemption for any reason (e.g., the organization failed to establish the basis for the exemption), the revenue agent is required to notify the applicant of the proposed adverse action as well as thoroughly explain the consequences and their appeal rights. The organization can submit additional information to explain any discrepancies related to the adverse action. The agent is to carefully review any new information and reconsider the proposed denial. After any denial is finalized, IRS is required to notify the appropriate state regulatory agency of the applicant’s denial (including failure to establish the exemption). After a favorable determination letter is sent, a charity can undertake additional activities that are consistent with section 501(c)(3) even if it did not mention them in its application. Each letter includes a paragraph stating that the charity should notify IRS of substantial changes in its operations. The purpose is to allow IRS to assess whether the changes affect exemption, private foundation status, unrelated business income tax, excise taxes, etc., and if so, whether IRS needs to begin an examination. According to an IRS official, IRS would like to be informed of the new activities, however, the law does not require charities to notify IRS of the changes. If a charity does not fully and accurately disclose its activities in the application or does not inform IRS of changes, the charity cannot rely on its determination letter to protect itself in the event of an IRS examination. If IRS determines in an examination that the new activities jeopardize exemption, revocation of exemption could be retroactive to the date the new activities were undertaken. In contrast, if activities upon which a revocation is based were disclosed to IRS, the charity may qualify for relief under IRC section 7805(b), and any revocation or adverse action will be prospective only. However, if it wants IRS approval in advance of its change to protect itself against a possible retroactive adverse action, it can request a private letter ruling from the national office in accordance with Revenue Procedure 2001-4. Organizations are notified that the determinations process may take up to 120 days. IRS has indicated that the average time to approve an application is currently 91 days. Delays and backlogs can occur for reasons such as an application was incomplete or inaccurate; taxpayers raised new issues or submitted additional evidence after the proposed determination; and a determination letter contained a misspelling of the organization’s name or an irrelevant addendum. In situations involving disaster relief, emergency hardship programs, or other situations where time is of essence, IRS’s procedures permit charitable relief organizations to request expedited handling when it applies or during the review of its application. The revenue agent is to fully consider the request, grant it if appropriate, and inform the applicant of the decision. The expedited request and the agent’s response should be documented in appropriate work papers. IRS has had expedited request procedures since 1994. The relief organizations created to address the September 11th tragedies received expedited application processing. From September 11, 2001, to March 20, 2002, IRS approved 262 applications for disaster relief organizations under expedited processing. Although the requirements for exemption were not waived, the average time for processing took approximately 7 days. IRS is planning follow-up reviews of all of these organizations and charities where necessary to determine if they are complying with the requirements that govern tax-exempt charities. To measure the quality of the reviews of applications, IRS uses the Tax Exempt Quality Measurement System. This measurement is based on a sample of determination cases that are closed. It is not used to evaluate the quality of the employee’s performance. Rather, the purpose is to measure and improve quality in making determinations on applications. An offshoot of the quality review process is to educate IRS staff involved in the determinations process by highlighting weaknesses that should be corrected. The six quality standards for determination cases deal with: Completeness of the application prior to closing. Timely processing. Technical issues. Work papers support conclusion. Case administration. Customer relations/professionalism. The following describes IRS’s processes for examining returns filed by exempt organizations, including charities. The discussion follows IRS’s processes from selecting returns through reviewing the results of the examinations. In April 2000, the centralized examination management concept was adopted, and examination-related activities were centralized in Dallas to improve consistency, coordination, and use of resources. IRS uses keypunched information to begin the process of identifying returns for examination. All returns (Forms 990) are sent to the Ogden Service Center for processing. When returns are received, Ogden staff keypunch about 20 percent of the line items, such as the tax year, identifying information, and various other data such as program service revenue, contributions, and fundraising expenses. The keypunched information is transferred electronically to the Exempt Organizations Business Master File and, if a return is selected for examination, to the Audit Information Management System (AIMS), which is used to track the status of examinations. At the conclusion of the keypunching process, the return information is available to be queried by another automated system—the Returns Information and Classification System (RICS). RICS allows for searches of returns on the basis of a variety of criteria, including known compliance problems and the size, location, and type of exempt organization such as charities. IRS uses a variety of ways to select returns for examination, but relies primarily on two methods: analysis of automated IRS data on RICS and referrals from outside the examination group. IRS uses RICS to analyze the automated data. RICS applies the criteria selected by the Planning and Program Group to identify returns and line items for potential examination. For example, RICS could be used to identify returns in which charities are reporting political expenditures, allocating expenses to reflect unrelated business income, reporting compensation and wages, but not filing Form 941, and not filing Form 990-T as required. The Classification Unit is responsible for pulling the returns that meet the criteria, and RICS is used to select a random sample of returns. Returns identified by RICS are considered to be general casework, which includes 12 conditions identified as “likely to have issues” that will lead to a change in the tax computation or even revocation of a charity’s tax- exempt status. Examination of these returns is intended to be “limited scope” addressing only the issue identified for which the return was selected. However, according to the Manager, EO Classification, revenue agents review the return to check for consistency with the basic exemption requirement for the charity. Another method used by IRS to select returns for examination is using a referral, that has the highest priority among returns to be examined. IRS receives referrals from parties inside and outside IRS, including the general public, corporations, and private and public sector employees. All referrals are sent to Dallas, where IRS staff input information on each referral into a database that includes the name of the exempt organization, its address, employer identification number, name of informant, and a sequential number. The database includes a paragraph summarizing the potential for an examination and the reason the referral-maker believes an examination is warranted. Returns Classification Specialists work referrals on a first-in, first-out basis and decide whether to send the referral for examination. Specialists use their knowledge of the law and judgment to determine whether the information referred provides a basis for “a reasonable belief of noncompliance.” Afterwards, the database is updated to note whether the referral is sent for examination. Referrals that are viewed as “sensitive” require a second review. Sensitive referrals involve churches or media attention; are received from a Member of Congress, the White House, or from IRS in Washington, D.C.; or are otherwise considered as political or sensitive. Beginning in 1999, the second review was required to be done by a three-person committee, which decides whether to initiate an examination. IRS also receives two other types of referrals. Future year referrals are received from determinations specialists (who review applications for tax- exempt status) and who can request an examination in 2 or 3 years on charities recently granted tax-exempt status. The purpose of these examinations is to determine whether actual charitable activities conform to what was intended when the tax-exempt application was approved. For these referrals, the database is updated to reflect the year the future return is to be selected for examination. If a return has not yet been filed, the examination is deferred until the return is filed and the future year portion of the referral database is so noted. In essence, the future year record acts as a suspense file, and referrals are later reviewed to determine if they should be sent to examination or given another suspense date. The other type of referral is a request for collateral examination. All these referrals are received from the Small Business/Self-Employed Division (SB/SE). SB/SE requests these examinations of tax-exempt organizations in connection with its examinations of small businesses that are related to tax-exempt organizations. To initiate an examination, such as when a group manager (who manages groups of revenue agents) determines that more examination work is needed, a request is sent by e-mail for a specific number of returns at specified revenue agent grade levels. Group managers decide how to distribute the requested number of returns by the specified grade levels in priority order on first-in, first-out basis. For returns selected by RICS, an IRS employee orders the related returns from the Ogden Service Center, which usually takes 6 to 9 weeks to arrive. All examination cases are entered on the automated system EOICS (Exempt Organizations Inventory Control System) that is used to track their status. The examination is conducted to ensure compliance with the provisions of the IRC relating to qualification, reporting and disclosure, and the excise and income taxes related to tax-exempt organizations. A revenue agent starts by contacting an organization to request information to check compliance for specific issues or lines on the return (Form 990). The agent is to compare that information for those issues to the return as well as to verify whether the organization is operating within its stated purpose. The number of return issues being examined can vary. Examinations vary in scope, depending on the type of issues, adequacy of the organization’s books and records, existence of effective internal controls, and size of the entity. Normally, revenue agents are expected to pursue the examination to the point at which they can resolve the specific issues that led to the examination and reasonably conclude that all items necessary for a proper determination of tax-exempt status have been considered. In general, when agents have completed examinations, the completed case files are provided to their group managers for review before the cases are closed. In addition to the group manager’s review of the examination, IRS has a separate group dedicated to reviewing the quality of examinations of exempt organizations such as charities. Reviewers are independent of the examination group and are experienced revenue agents. A reviewer is responsible for measuring and reporting on the quality of the examination and efforts to improve the work of the examination function. Examinations can be reviewed in two ways—special or mandatory review. In special reviews, the computer selects closed examinations randomly, so the reviews represent a statistically valid sample. The reviewer completes a check sheet that asks 57 questions about each closed examination. Most of the questions are to be answered yes or no, with yes being the preferred answer. However, some questions may not be applicable to each review. The questions address the examination quality standards and include topics such as the power of attorney requirements, the scope of the examination, and application of the law. The checklist also asks the reviewer to make an overall judgment on whether the action taken by the revenue agent was appropriate in meeting the examination quality standards. In contrast to special reviews, mandatory reviews are done while the examination is still open. Examinations that are required to be reviewed under mandatory review include those in which: (1) the exempt organization disagrees with a revenue agent’s decisions; (2) the group manager asks for the review to determine whether the actions taken by the agent were correct and appropriate; (3) the agent proposed revoking or modifying the tax-exempt status of a charity; (4) a final revocation for certain other tax-exempt organizations is made; and (5) technical advicewas obtained. Like special reviews, the purpose of a mandatory review is to ensure the quality of cases and to provide quality assurance. Mandatory reviewers use the checklist used by special reviewers to review an examination. In addition, mandatory reviewers are to review whether the work papers adequately document the examination. Since the examinations are open, mandatory reviewers can send them back to the examination group for additional work. If this is done, a memorandum is prepared that discusses the results of the review. The group is to decide if it agrees and to notify mandatory reviewers of the decision. More broadly, trends are monitored and if a theme is identified, a memorandum could be sent to the examination group on the findings or concerns. Table 17 provides data on the number of staff available to do examinations. We also reviewed the number of examination hours charged by IRS staff, as shown in table 18. Because Coordinated Examination Program (CEP) audits may run over several years and take more time, IRS officials suggested that we compare CEP and non-CEP examination hours for charities. Table 19 shows average hours for non-CEP examinations. Table 20 shows the examination hours per charity return reported for CEP examinations. IRS can revoke tax-exempt status for all charities. A revocation basically removes the tax-exempt charter for operating. The organization would have to reapply as a tax-exempt organization and start the process over. Table 21 shows the number and reasons for revocations for fiscal years 1996 through 2001. To determine the extent to which other federal agencies oversee charities and if IRS coordinates its oversight of charities with those agencies, we contacted officials at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), and Office of Personnel Management (OPM). This is not an exhaustive analysis of all federal agencies that work with charities. Charities are not specifically under the oversight authority of any single federal agency. In addition, no agencies we spoke with reported ongoing coordination with IRS to identify fraudulent charities or to oversee general charity operations. In most cases, IRS would only be contacted if its expertise as a tax authority were needed in an investigation, or to verify an organization’s tax-exempt status. The following summaries describe the charity oversight activities of the various federal agencies. Within its Economic Crimes Unit, the FBI’s goal is to reduce the amount of economic loss by national and international telemarketing fraud throughout the United States. Additionally, the mission of the FBI’s Governmental Fraud Program is to oversee the nationwide investigation of allegations of fraud related to federal government procurement, contracts, and federally-funded programs. According to FBI officials, the FBI does not have a charity-specific investigation classification. An investigation may involve a charity, but it would likely be due to telemarketing fraud or mail fraud. Since the tragedies of September 11th, the FBI has been scrutinizing some charities for fraudulent activities related to terrorism. An FBI official said the FBI would contact IRS if their tax expertise were needed. FEMA’s mission is to reduce loss of life and property and protect critical infrastructure from all types of hazards through a comprehensive, risk- based, emergency management program of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. FEMA coordinates its disaster relief work through the National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD) organization. NVOAD members are 501(c)(3) organizations that are experienced in disaster relief work. FEMA sometimes works with larger, well-established organizations that are not NVOAD members, such as the United Way. According to a FEMA official, FEMA does not work with IRS to assess charities, but IRS has held two training sessions for FEMA on accounting for disaster donations. In addition, FEMA has neither made referrals to IRS nor received specific information from IRS about fraudulent charities. FTC enforces federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. FTC attempts to stop actions that threaten consumers’ opportunities to exercise informed choices. Recently, within the USA Patriot Act of 2001, under Section 1011, “Crimes Against Charitable Americans,” FTC’s authority regarding telemarketing and consumer fraud abuse was broadened. FTC also is a member of an online watchdog site, Consumer Sentinel, which tracks in a database consumer complaints and investigations relating to fraud. FTC often acts on referrals from state attorneys general, but does not coordinate its enforcement activities with IRS except for occasional work on criminal investigations. The USPIS is responsible for combating mail fraud. Thus, fundraising solicitations conducted via the mail are under its authority. USPIS also participates in Consumer Sentinel. USPIS does not coordinate investigations of charities with IRS unless an organizations’ tax-exempt status is being questioned, or if the tax expertise of IRS is needed. A USPIS official said they would welcome referrals from IRS, as IRS is the appropriate agency to take the lead on charity issues. OPM oversees the annual Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). Charities are selected for CFC through an application process. Selection criteria may be found at 5 CFR, Part 950, or, www.opm.gov/cfc/html/regs.htm. The criteria include: Submitting annual audits and annual reports and having a responsible governing board with no conflicts of interest. Audits are only required if the revenue dollar level was over a certain level. Fundraising and administrative costs should be no more than 25 percent of total costs, or be “reasonable” with documentation that suggests appropriate justification. Less than 80 percent of their funding must come from government sources. National and international applicants are approved by OPM. At the local level, the Local Federal Coordinating Committee makes the approvals. OPM’s inspector general conducts risk-based audits of regional CFCs to check that funds are being collected and disbursed according to CFC guidelines and according to the intent of donors. According to officials at the office of inspector general, OPM neither audits charities directly nor works with IRS to identify fraudulent charities. | The tremendous outpouring of charitable donations in response to September 11 has raised concerns about whether some charities are spending too much on fundraising and management and too little on the charitable purposes related to their tax-exempt status. GAO found that Form 990 expense data is inadequate for public oversight purposes because charities have considerable discretion in recording their expenses when it comes to fundraising, management, and charitable services. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lacks data on the type and extent of possible compliance issues among charities. Moreover, IRS oversight of charities suffers from a lack of results-oriented goals and strategies. Concerns have also been raised that IRS's resources have not kept pace with the growth in the charitable sector, and some measures suggest that available resources may not be used as effectively as in the past. State officials consider inadequate the charity data IRS shares with them. IRS does not proactively share some data that states are permitted to receive, such as denials and revocations of charities' tax-exempt status. Federal law prohibits sharing some data that state officials believe would be valuable, such as the status and results of examinations of charities' returns. |
The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) was proposed by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in the 1960s as a way to promote economic growth in developing countries. GSP allows developing countries to enjoy import tariff “preferences” (tariff elimination or reduction) when shipping certain goods to industrialized nations. Because these preferences are applied only to developing countries, however, GSP is inconsistent with article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Article I is commonly referred to as the most-favored-nation (MFN) clause. Therefore, in 1971, the GATT organization granted a 10-year waiver of article I and made it permanent in 1979. The United States implemented its GSP Program in 1976. The program grants duty-free preferences to certain designated items from eligible countries, although there are restrictions on GSP benefits. Legislative provisions prevent certain products and countries from ever receiving eligibility. Benefits for eligible items may be restricted based upon (1) a product’s “import sensitivity,” that is, the degree to which a foreign product will compete with and negatively affect a U.S. product; or (2) the competitiveness of certain beneficiary developing countries (BDCs) in exporting specific items to the United States. Countries may be completely removed from the program if they no longer meet various eligibility requirements, such as by exceeding a specific gross national product (GNP) per capita level or failing to provide internationally recognized worker rights. In 1992, $35.7 billion in GSP-eligible imports entered the United States from beneficiary developing countries. About $16.7 billion, or 47 percent, of these imports actually received GSP duty-free entry. The U.S. GSP Program provided benefits to 145 developing countries and territories as of March 1994 and included 4,578 items on the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Over the years, GSP programs have been introduced by numerous nations; 16 programs are currently in effect. The two other major GSP programs, those of the European Union (EU) and Japan, are structured quite differently from the U.S. system and were considered more complex by UNCTAD and foreign officials we interviewed. The GSP concept was first proposed by UNCTAD in the mid-1960s. According to an UNCTAD official, UNCTAD’s GSP developers were strong advocates of the idea that “trade, not aid” was an effective way for industrialized nations to assist developing countries. GSP was viewed as a way to promote economic growth and industrialization in developing countries through, for example, increased foreign investment and exports of manufactured goods. This would allow beneficiary countries to earn foreign exchange and interact on a global scale. Another UNCTAD official added that GSP was viewed as a particularly effective “assistance program” because it rewarded competitiveness and encouraged increased participation in international trade based on market demands. UNCTAD fully endorsed the GSP concept in 1968 and completed it by passing a resolution in UNCTAD’s Special Committee on Preferences in 1970. As originally envisioned by UNCTAD, GSP was to follow three primary principles: (1) GSP was to be “generalized,” meaning that all “donor” countries that granted GSP benefits were to implement basically the same GSP program; (2) GSP was to be “nonreciprocal,” with donor countries exacting no concessions from benefiting nations in return for the tariff preferences; and (3) GSP was to be “nondiscriminatory” so that every eligible developing country would enjoy the same benefits as every other eligible developing country. According to an UNCTAD official, none of these goals has been met: each of the 16 donor countries (including the EU) has adopted its own separate version of a GSP scheme; demands for reciprocity have clearly been made through imposition of eligibility obligations such as U.S. “country practice” requirements related to worker rights and intellectual property rights (IPR) (discussed in ch. 5); and discrimination among developing countries exists within schemes. Granting GSP tariff preferences to developing countries is inconsistent with the GATT’s article I MFN provision because it excludes developed countries. Therefore, during the creation of GSP, the contracting parties to GATT determined that the authority for the GSP Program would have to be in the form of a GATT waiver to the MFN clause. The waiver, which was granted in 1971 for 10 years, authorized each industrial country to establish its own GSP program, provided that these programs benefited all “developing countries.” However, it was left to each industrial country to define what it considered to be a “developing country.” Thus, although the GATT waiver established the GSP framework, a great deal of individual discretion was left to each nation implementing a GSP program. The 10-year GATT waiver would have expired in 1981. However, as part of the Tokyo Round negotiations, the contracting parties to GATT entered into a new derogation, or exception, from the MFN principle of article I in 1979, this time on a permanent basis, in a declaration entitled “Differential and More Favorable Treatment, Reciprocity, and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries.” This declaration, commonly referred to as the “enabling clause,” stated that “ontracting parties may accord differential and more favorable treatment to developing countries, without according such treatment to other contracting parties. . .,” notwithstanding the provisions of the GATT MFN clause. According to a GATT official, this permanent waiver makes GSP autonomous and outside the GATT legal system. He stated that GSP beneficiaries have no formal legal recourse under GATT to seek changes in GSP programs over historically contentious GSP issues. These issues include, for example, the U.S. practice of maintaining “differential treatment,” or unequal product coverage, among GSP countries. A developing country may, however, apply to GATT for consultations as provided for in the enabling clause. The GATT official said that GSP programs have been employed in a more restrictive manner in the last few years, with a trend toward discretionary removal of GSP benefits for certain products from specific countries. However, for political reasons, no developing country has yet requested a consultation. The GATT official added that the country practice provisions currently in U.S. GSP law may be contrary to the spirit of the enabling clause due to their nontrade nature. However, in granting the GSP waiver from GATT, no guidelines, principles, or other criteria were provided on how to structure a GSP program. Further, the areas addressed in country practice provisions have been outside the purview of issues currently addressed by GATT. The official said that, essentially, the waiver provided donor countries with a carte blanche that allows them to implement this unilateral “gift” as they see fit. The GSP Program Director said he did not concur with the categorical nature of some of the statements made by the GATT official. He said that by ratifying the GATT enabling clause, countries have agreed that their GSP programs would grant “generalized, nonreciprocal, and nondiscriminatory preferences.” Interpretation of these terms is unclear. However, one interpretation has been that the intention of this provision is to prevent GSP donors from using GSP to obtain explicit tariff concessions, especially “reverse preferences.” Moreover, the provision could be interpreted as involving explicit obligations, subject to GATT dispute settlement procedures. Aside from the autonomy of GSP from GATT rules, an official within the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) said that the GATT enabling clause itself establishes a foundation to justify a previously mentioned, historically controversial aspect of the U.S. GSP Program: maintaining “differential treatment,” or unequal product coverage, among BDCs. This provision of the U.S. program, which allows the President selectively to remove GSP eligibility for certain items from particular countries that ship these items competitively, has been criticized by some BDCs. They note that GSP was meant to be a nondiscriminatory program. Such removal is commonly referred to as “product graduation.” According to USTR’s General Counsel (in October 1992), GSP is meant to temporarily assist developing countries to progressively become full GATT participants. USTR points out that one provision in the enabling clause speaks to the possible improved ability of developing countries to make “contributions or negotiated concessions or take other mutually agreed action” under the provisions of GATT as their economies develop and their trade situations improve. When a particular industry in a developing country has become sufficiently advanced so as to be globally competitive, it no longer needs GSP benefits to compete with industries in developed countries. With respect to that competitive industry, the developing country is expected to participate “fully” in GATT. This process envisions differentiation or product graduation—removing GSP benefits for items from particular BDCs that export the articles competitively, while maintaining benefits on these items for other BDCs. A GATT official agreed with this analysis, stating that because product graduation deals specifically with trade in goods, it is possible for USTR to interpret this section of the enabling clause in this manner. He added, however, that USTR could not “invoke” this argument on a legal basis within GATT since no direct link exists between this provision of the enabling clause and the GSP Program. The U.S. GSP Program is administered by the GSP Subcommittee, a staff-level working group of the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC). Agency representatives from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, the Interior, Labor, State, and the Treasury are on the GSP Subcommittee. TPSC comprises officials from these agencies at the office director level. TPSC, in turn, reports to the Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG), the policy-making body composed of subcabinet level officials. All three groups are chaired by USTR. The GSP Subcommittee administers an annual review process for petitions to add products to or remove products from GSP coverage, as well as petitions related to country eligibility. The GSP annual review is a 13-month cycle, with petitions submitted by June 1 and triggering a two-stage decision cycle. In the first stage, a decision is made on which petitions to accept for review; in the second stage, the accepted petitions are fully reviewed and a decision is made on which petitions to grant or deny for GSP coverage. All GSP eligibility changes go into effect on the following July 1. The GSP Program has undergone several changes since its implementation that tend to limit benefits available under the program. Legislative restrictions on eligible products and countries have been added. As a result of the program’s restrictions on benefits, not all imports that are technically eligible under the program actually receive duty-free entry. The U.S. GSP Program was originally authorized by title V of the 1974 Trade Act (P.L. 93-618, Jan. 3, 1975), codified in title 19 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.). The program became operational on January 1, 1976, and provides duty-free entry for designated items from eligible developing countries and territories. According to the 1974 act, the GSP Program was meant to provide fair and reasonable access to products of less-developed countries in the U.S. market. Statutory restrictions placed on product eligibility indicate that the need to protect domestic producers and limit use of the program by competitive countries was also to be recognized in administering the program. The 1974 Trade Act allows the President to designate BDCs, as well as specific articles, as eligible under the program. He must consider several factors when making country designations, such as the effect of GSP preferences on the economic development of BDCs and the anticipated impact of granting GSP on U.S. domestic producers. The 1974 act enumerated several factors that automatically eliminate countries from consideration for GSP eligibility, such as whether a country is communist (unless certain criteria are met); is a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC); or has expropriated U.S. property without compensation, negotiation, or arbitration. Some additional, discretionary factors to be considered in granting (or maintaining) GSP status for a country include the country’s level of economic development and the country’s provision of equitable and reasonable access to its markets. The 1974 Trade Act contains several provisions that limit potential product benefits available under the program. Items such as most textiles, footwear, and other import-sensitive articles are statutorily prohibited from GSP eligibility. Further, items that are granted eligibility can later be restricted from actually receiving duty-free entry in many ways. For example, GSP has a “rule of origin” requirement. This requirement states that at least 35 percent of the content and processing of an item shipped under GSP must have come from the shipping BDC in order to receive duty-free entry. The item must also be shipped directly from the BDC to the United States. In addition, as previously mentioned (see pp. 21-22), the 1974 act provides for “graduation,” or the permanent removal of GSP benefits, under the section that allows the President to withdraw, suspend, or limit preferences at any time for any article or beneficiary country. Finally, the program contains a “competitive need limit” (CNL) exclusion provision, which is the temporary removal of GSP preferences for a particular item from a particular BDC. This provision automatically suspends GSP preferences if, in any 1 calendar year for any individual item, a beneficiary country ships above a statutorily determined import level. Benefits can be reinstated subsequently if the BDC’s exports fall below the legislated limits. (These limitations are further discussed in ch. 3.) When GSP was reauthorized by the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-573, Oct. 30, 1984), some of the program’s benefits were reduced, and the program became more reciprocal in nature. The 1984 act states that GSP is intended to promote the economic development of BDCs and notes that trade, rather than aid, is a more effective way of achieving this goal. The 1984 legislation also points out that the amended GSP law is meant to provide trade and development opportunities for BDCs without adversely affecting U.S. producers and workers and “to integrate developing countries into the international trading system with its attendant responsibilities in a manner commensurate with their development.” U.S officials whom we interviewed reinforced this last idea, pointing out that GSP has an increased focus as a leveraging tool that can be used to encourage desired behaviors in beneficiary countries in exchange for continued GSP benefits. As a result, the 1984 act’s eligibility criteria for countries and products under GSP are stricter. For example, a country must now have taken or be taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights in order to be eligible for GSP. The provision of adequate and effective protection of intellectual property by beneficiaries is also assessed in determining whether to grant (or maintain) GSP eligibility. Further, a GNP per capita eligibility limit was enacted, excluding countries that exceed the ceiling. The 1984 law also required the administration to conduct a general review of the GSP Program, and, based upon that review, to identify products from individual countries that could be considered sufficiently competitive. Results of the review were published in 1987. Many sufficiently competitive items shipped from specific BDCs were identified and are now subject to reduced statutorily defined CNL import levels. However, at the same time, the amended law gave the President the authority to waive these CNL exclusions if a country exceeds the legislated limits. The value of imports under the U.S. GSP Program has grown substantially over the years. In 1978, soon after the program was implemented, GSP-eligible imports (all imports from BDCs that are technically eligible to receive GSP duty-free access) amounted to $9.7 billion in 1978 dollars.Fifty-three percent of this amount ($5.2 billion) actually received GSP duty-free entry into the United States. By 1992, the value of GSP-eligible imports was $35.7 billion, with 47 percent of this amount ($16.7 billion) actually entering duty free under GSP. An additional $2.9 billion (8 percent of eligible imports) received duty-free access through other programs. Forty-five percent of the GSP-eligible imports that entered the United States in 1992 were actually assessed MFN tariffs due to the legislative reasons stated earlier (see pp. 23-24). Table 1.1 shows that as of March 1994, 119 independent countries and 26 nonindependent countries and territories were eligible for the U.S. GSP Program. The most recent countries to be designated as eligible were Kazakhstan and Romania, which were granted GSP status in February 1994. Russia, which was granted GSP eligibility status on September 30, 1993, had exports to the United States of $46.2 million in goods that would have been eligible for GSP benefits in 1992. All former Soviet republics combined (excluding Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which have already been designated as GSP beneficiary countries) shipped $56.9 million in goods to the United States that would have been eligible in that year. As of January 1, 1994, half of the items at the 8-digit level of the U.S. HTS (4,578) were eligible for GSP out of the 9,219 total items. According to an UNCTAD GSP official, there are 16 GSP programs throughout the world (which includes 1 program for all 12 member states of the EU) that have been introduced over a number of years. The EU and Japan introduced their GSP programs in 1971, East European countries throughout 1972, Australia and Canada in 1974, and the United States in 1976. The GSP Program of the EU is quite different from that of the United States and was generally considered to be more complicated by foreign officials and industry representatives with whom we met. The program is divided into four product areas for eligible countries: industrial, textile (including items subject to the Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles for some countries), agricultural, and steel products. For agricultural items, tariffs are eliminated or reduced. Specified items in all other areas enjoy total duty-free entry. Some items are subject to fixed duty-free amounts, or tariff quotas beyond which MFN rates are automatically reinstated. For other items, MFN duties may be reintroduced once a duty-free import tariff ceiling amount is met, based on an exchange of information between the member states and EU authorities. GSP access is reinstated at the end of the calendar year for all items. The amount eligible for preferential entry often varies by product and beneficiary country for specific items (though not for agricultural products, which are subject to global reduced-duty amounts). An UNCTAD official told us that the EU has been waiting until the completion of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations before it renews its GSP Program. The Japanese GSP Program, which has been extended to the year 2001, is also structured very differently from the U.S. system. This system was cited as complex by eligible beneficiary country officials we interviewed. The Japanese program comprises a positive list of agricultural items that are eligible for GSP, and a negative list of industrial goods (including textiles) that are ineligible. Similar to the EU’s GSP, the Japanese program provides for duty-free as well as reduced-duty access under GSP. Reduced duties apply to both agricultural and industrial items. Import ceilings apply to some industrial products (though not agricultural goods) and may lead to a reinstatement of MFN tariff rates; imported products posing no threat or injury to Japan’s domestic industry can continue to receive GSP preferences even after a country exceeds ceiling levels. Japan has adopted a graduation policy, whereby a particular country can lose its GSP benefits for a specific product when the beneficiary is viewed as internationally competitive. From a beneficiary’s perspective, Australia’s GSP program has been mentioned by UNCTAD officials as straightforward and simple. They explained that Australia’s GSP scheme includes almost every item on its tariff schedule, with all developing countries receiving a tariff reduction of 5 percentage points. Australia’s average tariff is around 10 percent, so the program offers a duty preference of about 50 percent. At the request of Senators Harris Wofford and Byron Dorgan and Representatives Steve Gunderson, William Hughes, Collin Peterson, and David Obey, we analyzed (1) benefits provided to beneficiary developing countries, (2) limitations on GSP imports, (3) administration of the program for adding or removing products from GSP coverage, and (4) administration of program provisions requiring that countries follow certain intellectual property and worker rights practices. To assess the benefits and limitations experienced from the GSP Program, we obtained, through the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, computer tapes of data on GSP imports. These data are maintained by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of the Census. We did not verify the accuracy of these data. We examined data for 1989-92. We also assessed overall imports by GSP-eligible countries using data from the COMPRO system maintained by the Census Bureau. All dollar amounts in this report are current dollar figures, unless otherwise noted. The database figures we analyzed contained specific semiannual information on the amount (U.S. dollars) of GSP-eligible imports. These imports were categorized in the data by those imports that received GSP duty-free entry (with flags identifying those that entered duty free due to competitive need limit waivers), those that were dutied (with flags identifying imports dutied due to graduation or competitive need limits), and those that were eligible for GSP but instead entered the United States duty free under another preferential option. In order to determine imports dutied because of administrative exclusions, we subtracted those imports specifically tagged as dutied due to graduation or competitive need limits from the total dutied imports figure for each of the 4 years of data. We compiled data to identify the top country exporters for each year, as well as the top products that were shipped. We estimated U.S. duties forgone figures due to the GSP Program by multiplying the GSP duty-free amount that entered for each product by its MFN tariff rate and then adding these amounts together. We frequently consulted USTR and International Trade Commission (ITC) officials to discuss the accuracy of our methodologies and data. To assess the degree to which BDC representatives and others believe they are benefiting from or experiencing restrictions in using the U.S. GSP Program, we interviewed BDC government officials and business representatives in six case study countries: Brazil, Thailand, Malaysia, the Dominican Republic, Hungary, and Turkey. We also interviewed Mexican embassy officials in Washington, D.C. During early 1993, we discussed the program with several U.S. businesses, primarily importers, many of whom contacted us after learning about this study from the American Association of Exporters and Importers, or business associations representing importers. We also reviewed documents submitted to ITC by U.S. companies that were, or could have been, in competition with GSP imports in 1991. To analyze concerns related to the administration of the program for adding or removing products and examine whether the program was generally well structured, we interviewed a broad spectrum of participants in the GSP process. These participants included GSP Subcommittee officials; former GSP officials; ITC officials; U.S. embassy and foreign government officials in our six case study countries as well as Mexican embassy officials in the United States; and UNCTAD, GATT, and USTR officials in Geneva, Switzerland. We also interviewed trade experts, academics, and industry and trade association representatives in the United States and the six case study countries. We reviewed GSP and ITC interagency documents, including certain case study petition files. We examined 45 cases out of 175 considered in the 1991 GSP Program review and 1991 Special Review for Central and Eastern Europe, with our selection based on the cases (1) being designated by USTR as controversial (and thereby being elevated from the GSP Subcommittee to the TPSC and TPRG), (2) being filed by petitioners in our six case study countries, or (3) resulting in recommendations for differential treatment. We also attended USTR, ITC, and congressional GSP hearings. We did not review U.S. Customs’ administration of imports under the program. To determine the President’s authority for allowing differential treatment of BDCs through permanent product graduation under U.S. GSP law and the U.S.’ GATT obligations, our Office of General Counsel obtained and reviewed a written explanation of such legal authority from USTR’s Office of General Counsel. We interviewed GSP officials and examined the GSP statute and the legislative history of the program. We also interviewed GATT officials to obtain their views on this issue. To analyze concerns about the administration of country practice provisions and the amount of leverage available from the GSP Program, we interviewed a broad spectrum of GSP participants in the United States, in the six case study countries, and at UNCTAD and GATT in Geneva. In addition, we interviewed representatives of the major IPR and worker rights advocacy groups in the United States that have participated in the GSP Program. These included, for IPR, the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PRMA); and for worker rights, the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the International Labor Rights Education and Research Fund (ILRERF), and Human Rights Watch. In the Dominican Republic, we interviewed representatives of MPAA and the Dominican Cable Operators Association, as well as representatives of a pharmaceutical manufacturers’ group. We interviewed representatives of labor groups and the free trade zone owners’ association; we also visited three factories in a free trade zone. In Malaysia and Thailand, we interviewed representatives of labor groups and manufacturers’ associations. We also examined data on overall country practice petition results since 1984, as well as eight cases in the 1990-92 annual reviews. We selected these cases based on (1) our finding that they were filed against one of our six case study countries and (2) our desire to obtain a cross-section of IPR and worker rights cases. The cases selected were not a statistically representative sample. We performed our review from May 1992 to May 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. USTR, on behalf of the administration, provided written comments on a draft of this report. USTR comments are presented and evaluated in chapters 4 and 5 and are reprinted in appendix III. USTR also suggested technical changes and clarifications that, to the extent we deemed appropriate, have been incorporated into the report. In addition, ITC provided us with technical comments on the section in chapter 4 that addresses ITC’s role in the GSP Program. We considered these comments and revised the report as appropriate. The primary goal of the GSP Program is to assist BDCs in strengthening their economic development by granting preferential tariff access to the U.S. market. This preferential access can help BDCs to realize benefits, such as increased production and exporting of industrial goods, greater foreign investment in their countries, and increased foreign exchange earnings. However, it is not possible to measure the extent to which these objectives have been realized specifically because of GSP. The impact of GSP cannot be isolated from other factors, such as foreign assistance or internal policies adopted by BDCs that promote increased commercial activity and stable economic growth. Though the impact of GSP on BDC economies cannot be accurately determined, it is possible to examine the GSP Program as a part of total U.S. trade and assess the level and composition of duty-free access to the U.S. market provided to BDCs by the GSP Program. These figures serve as an indicator of the value of the GSP Program to developing countries. GSP duty-free imports into the United States in 1992 were $16.7 billion. This figure was less than half of the $35.7 billion in imports that were eligible to receive GSP preferences and amounted to 3 percent of total U.S. imports. U.S. import duties forgone on GSP imports were almost $900 million in 1992. In that year 3,370 eligible items shipped to the United States received GSP duty-free entry on some shipments; 9 percent of these items had MFN tariff rates of at least 10 percent. The value of the difference between GSP zero tariff preferences and MFN tariff rates (i.e., duties forgone) would decrease if the MFN tariff reductions achieved under the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations are enacted. Imports under the GSP Program are dominated by a handful of countries. Mexico, which was removed from the program upon the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on January 1, 1994, accounted for 44 percent of all GSP-eligible imports and 29 percent of all GSP duty-free imports in 1992. The top 10 exporting countries of GSP duty-free items in 1992, including Mexico, Malaysia, Thailand, Brazil, and the Philippines, accounted for 85 percent of the value of all duty-free shipments from the 127 countries that shipped eligible items under the program. For the 1989 and 1990 GSP annual reviews, which we reviewed, top shipping countries also submitted the majority of petitions to grant GSP status to new products. From a product perspective, GSP duty-free import values are dominated by industrial articles. The legislative exclusion of textile goods from GSP eligibility was an issue of concern raised by foreign officials we interviewed. Finally, numerous items that were eligible to receive GSP benefits actually entered the United States duty free or partially duty free under alternative programs or provisions. In 1992, imports receiving GSP duty-free entry constituted 47 percent of all imports that were eligible under the program. This proportion is a slight increase from 1989, when GSP duty-free imports were 41 percent of all eligible imports. The benefit of not having to pay duties under the GSP Program is referred to as “duties forgone.” In 1992, this amount was almost $900 million. In that year, 3,370 items, including 302 with MFN tariff rates of 10 percent or higher, received some duty-free entry. The advantage of these duties forgone would decrease if the Uruguay Round market access commitments, which would require the United States to lower its MFN tariff rates, are enacted. GSP imports are a small component of overall U.S. imports, as shown in table 2.1. The value of GSP duty-free imports increased steadily between 1989 and 1992, as can be seen in table 2.1, though their share of total U.S. imports has remained small. Eligible imports grew by 46 percent overall from 1989 to 1992, which was much faster than the 27-percent growth in total U.S. imports from beneficiary countries during that period. Over these years, GSP duty-free imports under the program grew even faster, by 67 percent. In 1992, 33 percent of the almost $110 billion in imports from GSP beneficiaries were eligible for GSP. As shown in table 2.2, the share of eligible imports that received GSP duty-free entry increased somewhat, from 41 percent in 1989 to 47 percent in 1992. It should also be noted that in 1992, of total U.S. imports from the BDCs, duty-free shipments under GSP accounted for 15 percent. Mexico’s participation in the GSP Program was terminated when NAFTA was implemented on January 1, 1994. Because Mexico was the largest shipper under the program in 1992, we examined the structure of the GSP Program with Mexico data excluded. Since a high proportion (67 percent) of Mexico’s GSP-eligible shipments were dutied in that year, the program’s coverage changes significantly if that country’s figures are removed. For 1992, GSP-eligible imports without Mexico would have been $20.2 billion, dutied imports from BDCs would have been $5.7 billion, and GSP duty-free imports would have been $12 billion. Therefore, as shown in figure 2.1, without Mexico a higher proportion, 59 percent, of eligible imports would have received GSP duty-free entry, while 28 percent of imports would have been subject to duties. Dutied imports with Mexico Other duty-free imports without Mexico GSP duty-free imports without Mexico Note 1: With Mexico: GSP-eligible imports were $35.7 billion, with GSP duty-free imports at $16.7 billion, dutied imports at $16.1 billion, and other duty-free imports at $2.9 billion. Note 2: Without Mexico: GSP-eligible imports would have been $20.2 billion, with GSP duty-free imports at $11.9 billion, dutied imports at $5.7 billion, and other duty-free imports at $2.6 billion. Table 2.3 shows that as GSP duty-free imports increased between 1989 and 1992, duties forgone by the United States under the GSP Program increased as well, from an estimated $569 million in 1989 to $894 million in 1992. Duty-free imports grew by 11 percent in 1990 from the 1989 level, and then increased by 23 percent and 22 percent in 1991 and 1992, respectively. Duties forgone followed a similar pattern, but at slower rates, growing 11 percent in 1990 compared to 1989, and then increasing by 19 percent and 20 percent in the following years, respectively. Since the level of duty-free imports increased more quickly over this period than did duties forgone, it is apparent that the average tariff savings and the associated advantage provided by the program have decreased. The average tariff that would apply to all duty-free imports in the absence of GSP fell slightly, from almost 5.7 percent in 1989 to just over 5.3 percent in 1992. The level of duties forgone will now likely be smaller than in past years due to the removal of two BDCs. In 1992, duties forgone attributable to GSP imports from Mexico and Israel (which is being removed from the program over a 2-year period ending July 1, 1995) amounted to an estimated $243 million and $26 million, respectively. This $269 million was 30 percent of total duties forgone for the year. In 1992, 3,370 GSP-eligible items had some shipments that entered the United States GSP duty free. The top item responsible for duties forgone was raw cane sugar, with duties forgone estimated at $29.5 million. Other top items and their duties forgone included telephone sets ($26.7 million), tequila ($17.2 million), precious metal jewelry ($15.5 million), and cordless handset phones ($12.3 million). Certain items shipped under GSP have high MFN tariff rates. Of the 3,370 items that received some GSP duty-free preferences, 302 of them (9 percent) had MFN tariff rates of 10 percent or higher, and 44 of these 302 items had MFN rates of 20 percent or more. The highest MFN tariff rate was an estimated 81.4 percent for undenatured ethyl alcohol for beverages. The 302 items accounted for 19 percent of the total value of duties forgone. The Congressional Budget Office calculates the revenue loss from the GSP Program to the United States by estimating duties forgone and then applying a standard 25-percent offset. This offset, which is employed in estimating costs for all programs or initiatives that reduce customs duties, recognizes that imports will decrease in cost. This reduction will, assuming a constant GNP, put incomes at higher levels than if MFN duties were in force. As a result, government direct tax revenues (corporate, individual, and payroll) will also be higher. Therefore, the overall cost of the GSP Program is considered lower than the actual value of duties forgone. The advantage of duty preferences for GSP (and other preferential programs) will erode if the results of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations under GATT are enacted. Specifically, as a result of tariff negotiations, the United States will have lower committed or “bound” MFN tariff levels. The United States already has a comparatively low average tariff level; the average tariff on all goods subject to duties that were imported into the United States in 1991 was 5.3 percent. As a result of the Uruguay Round, U.S. tariffs are expected to fall on average by around one-third. The United States has agreed to largely eliminate tariffs for GSP-eligible items such as pharmaceuticals, toys, and furniture. The Director of the GSP Program has estimated that if the results of the Uruguay Round are enacted, the trade-weighted average tariff for GSP goods will decrease from around 5.5 percent to about 3 percent once all tariff reductions are implemented. This would mean that tariffs for GSP-eligible goods will be reduced by an estimated 48 percent over 10 years, according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). An OMB official said that 95 percent of these tariff reductions would be phased in within the first 5 years and around 25 percent during the first year. Finally, although GSP duty-free exports are a small component of trade for GSP beneficiaries, these countries still enjoy strong duty-free market access to the United States, as can be seen by examining the combined results of GSP with exports that enter the United States from BDCs under an MFN tariff rate of zero. As of January 1, 1994, 1,420 items at the 8-digit level of the U.S. HTS had MFN rates of zero. We analyzed the top 50 imports from all GSP beneficiaries (at the 8-digit U.S. HTS level) in 1992 that accounted for $56.3 billion, or over half (51 percent), of total imports to the United States from BDCs. Of this amount, around $1.8 billion, or 3 percent of the total value of the top 50 imports, received GSP duty-free entry. In addition, another $14.8 billion (26 percent) entered MFN duty free. Therefore, almost 30 percent of these imports entered the United States duty free for these two reasons. Furthermore, several GSP countries are able to further augment their duty-free access through other preferential or reciprocal arrangements, described later in this chapter (see p. 44). As previously noted (see pp. 34-37) and as shown in figure 2.2, Mexico was the dominant BDC in terms of the value of imports shipped to the United States under the GSP Program. In 1992, Mexico accounted for $15.6 billion of GSP-eligible imports to the United States, or 44 percent of all such imports from GSP countries. While the $4.8 billion in GSP duty-free imports from Mexico accounted for 29 percent of all such imports, that country also had 65 percent of the GSP imports into the United States that were dutied. Other top duty-free shippers that accounted for the majority of shipments under the program included Malaysia, Thailand, and Brazil. Table I.1 in appendix I (see p. 129) shows in more detail that the program’s GSP-eligible imports are clearly dominated by just a few countries. The top 10 shipping countries accounted for 87 percent of all eligible imports in 1992, and the top 25 countries accounted for 97 percent. For the year, GSP-eligible imports came from 127 countries. The percentages of imports of GSP duty-free goods from the top shipping countries were similar. For the top four GSP countries shipping duty-free items (other than Mexico), these duty-free imports into the United States accounted for around 20-30 percent of each country’s total shipments to the United States in 1992. In contrast, Venezuela, the ninth largest GSP duty-free beneficiary, had GSP duty-free shipments equal to only 4 percent of that country’s total shipments to the United States. The ratio of GSP duty-free shipments to total shipments for each BDC that received GSP duty-free entry in 1992 is listed in table I.2 in appendix I (see pp. 130-133). The top-shipping BDCs have dominated the process of petitioning to add products eligible for GSP preferences. GSP exporters that ranked among the top 20 shippers of GSP duty-free goods had submitted all of the 81 petitions granted in the 1989 and 1990 review cycles. These petitioners had the highest percentage of duty-free shipments of any BDC after GSP status was granted for about half or more of the new items that BDCs exported. Our analysis also showed that granting eligibility to items did not ensure that they would be shipped by the petitioner or any other BDC, or that GSP export values would increase. These figures related to product additions are discussed in more detail in appendix II (see pp. 146-147). The industrial and other goods contained in chapters 25-96 of the U.S. HTS accounted for 90 percent of all GSP duty-free imports in 1992. Most of the value of GSP-eligible and duty-free imports comes from industrial goods concentrated in a few chapters of the U.S. HTS. In 1992, imports under U.S. HTS chapter 85 (electrical machinery and equipment, etc.) had the highest import value of any one chapter, with $10.9 billion in GSP-eligible imports. These imports received GSP duty-free entry on $3.7 billion in shipments. As shown in figure 2.3, this amount accounted for 22 percent of all GSP duty-free imports for 1992. More complete information is provided in table I.3 of appendix I (see pp. 134-145). Chapter 84 (Nuclear reactors and machinery, etc.) 8% Chapter 94 (Furniture and bedding, etc.) 5% Chapter 95 (Toys, etc.) 4% Chapter 87 (Vehicles other than railway, etc.) Agricultural items included in chapters 1-24 accounted for almost $3.8 billion (11 percent) of all GSP-eligible imports in 1992. Of this amount, 43 percent received GSP duty-free entry into the United States. This percentage is slightly lower than the overall average of GSP-eligible goods that received duty-free access (47 percent). U.S. HTS chapter 17 (sugars and sugar confectionery) had the highest level of agricultural imports receiving duty-free entry, at about $387 million. The top five items having the highest value in GSP duty-free shipments in 1992 were auto seat parts ($373 million), telephone sets ($315 million), precious metal jewelry ($239 million), raw cane sugar ($225 million), and display units for automatic data processing equipment ($215 million). These items had duty-free shipments totaling $1.37 billion, or 8 percent of total duty-free shipments under GSP. Textile items were cited by BDC officials as an area where BDCs have potential for improved GSP utilization: about 15 percent or more of the total exports of several BDCs comprised textiles and clothing in 1991. Textile and apparel articles are largely precluded from receiving GSP benefits due to a statutory exclusion that prevents items subject to textile agreements from receiving GSP benefits (see fn. 13 on p. 27). Total U.S. imports of BDC textile and apparel items in U.S. HTS chapters 50-63 amounted to $14.7 billion in 1992. This amount equaled 13 percent of total U.S. imports from BDCs. At the same time, GSP-eligible imports of these same items totaled $461 million, or 1 percent of total GSP-eligible imports into the United States. Other duty preference options exist for GSP beneficiaries that replace some duty-free benefits that could have been realized under the GSP Program: many items that are eligible under the GSP Program instead receive tariff preferences through alternative means. These options include the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA). BDCs can also ship items under U.S. HTS chapter 98, subchapter II (“9802”) or utilize the temporary duty suspensions contained in U.S. HTS chapter 99, subchapter II (most of which recently expired). In 1992, $2.9 billion (8 percent) of the $35.7 billion in imports that were eligible for GSP entered the United States under a duty preference provision other than GSP. When this amount is combined with the $16.7 billion that entered duty free under GSP, the data show that 55 percent of all GSP-eligible goods received duty-free entry. While many BDCs ship under GSP, the preponderance of benefits provided by the program’s duty elimination are concentrated toward the relatively small number of more advanced or larger BDCs that can produce and export goods that meet U.S. market demands. In addition, GSP is furthering developmental goals in that industrial products, rather than agricultural products, dominate duty-free imports. A number of factors limit the level of duty-free benefits that BDCs receive under the GSP Program. In 1992, 45 percent of the $35.7 billion in GSP-eligible imports did not receive duty-free entry. During recent years, administrative program provisions, such as the requirement for a certain percent of domestic content in exported products or for direct shipment of goods from the BDC to the United States, have increasingly become the factor that excludes GSP-eligible imports from receiving duty-free preferences. Administrative exclusions accounted for 56 percent of all exclusions in 1992, up from 31 percent in 1989. However, the removal of Mexico, which accounted for the majority of these exclusions, from the program is one factor that may alter this trend. Some import-sensitive items, such as textiles and footwear, are legislatively prohibited from receiving GSP eligibility. For those items that are granted GSP eligibility, the GSP law permits improvements in BDC competitiveness to limit duty-free imports for specific products from particular countries. Such exclusions include discretionary permanent “product graduation” or removal from the program of a product shipped by a particular BDC, as well as legislated annual import ceilings for individual items beyond which GSP preferences will automatically be suspended for a country. Product graduations have accounted for only a very small proportion of all exclusions. The statutory ceilings, called “competitive need limits” or CNL, were responsible for the majority of exclusions from GSP duty-free entry during 1989 and 1990, but had lost some importance by 1992. As a result of the 1989 GSP annual review, a policy was adopted that makes it easier for products from more economically advanced BDCs that are excluded under CNL to regain GSP status. However, CNL exclusions for certain countries have grown quickly in recent years. In 1992, all CNL exclusions were responsible for 42 percent of total exclusions. Although the overall value of shipments excluded from GSP due to CNL declined between 1989 and 1992, foreign officials we interviewed cited CNL as the main obstacle to obtaining GSP duty-free entry for eligible articles. Further, BDC officials we interviewed said that CNL exclusions actually result in a reduced ability to export to the United States, although items are excluded because the United States believes a BDC is competitive in exporting them. In examining two cycles of CNL exclusions, we found an immediate loss of market share once a CNL was implemented in a majority of cases for the country involved (though no causal link was identified). If BDCs are unable to produce and export eligible items, then they cannot participate in the program. Conversely, if a country is found to be competitive overall or sufficiently developed, then it can be permanently removed from the GSP Program. Such removal has been applied to several countries and in some cases has proven controversial. As shown in sable 3.1, there are several reasons why GSP-eligible imports into the United States did not actually receive GSP duty-free entry. The prominence of the different types of exclusions from GSP duty-free entry has changed between 1989 and 1992, with administrative exclusions now dominating limitations under the program. Administrative exclusions can occur for reasons such as a failure to meet program requirements on product domestic content (rule of origin) or on direct shipment of an item from a GSP country to the United States. Inadequate customs paperwork can also lead to this type of exclusion. In 1989, administrative exclusions amounted to $3.8 billion and accounted for 31 percent of all exclusions. By 1992, they had grown substantially to over $9 billion to become the primary reason (56 percent) for exclusions from GSP duty-free entry in that year. Some trade experts and U.S. officials we interviewed commented on one type of administrative exclusion as being in need of change—domestic content or “rule of origin” requirements. Title 19 U.S.C., subsection 2463(b), establishes specific criteria (rules of origin) that articles must meet in order to be eligible for GSP preferences. These criteria are in place to determine an imported good’s “legal nationality.” Under these rules, GSP duty-free entry is allowed only if the cost or value of materials produced in the beneficiary country, plus the direct costs of processing in the country, equals at least 35 percent of the appraised value of an article upon its entry into the United States. Product components from a third country must be “substantially transformed” into new and different constituent materials, of which the eligible article is composed, in the exporting BDC before they can be considered part of this 35-percent domestic content rule. For the GSP Program there is no measurable definition of the term substantially transformed, and the determination as to whether such a requirement has been met is made on a case-by-case basis that involves subjective judgment. In addition, goods must be imported directly from the beneficiary country into the customs territory of the United States to obtain the duty preference (although entrepôt trade may be allowed in some instances). There has been criticism of this type of rule of origin requirement, with U.S. officials we interviewed claiming that BDCs may have no predictable (i.e., clear) way of knowing before shipment whether foreign components will be considered to have been substantially transformed and can be included as part of the 35-percent domestic content. Therefore, some U.S. officials and one trade expert have suggested that the GSP Program should adopt a different rule of origin approach, similar to that of NAFTA, where substantial transformation is clearly defined by changing a product’s tariff classification. Under NAFTA, goods containing imported materials from outside the free trade area are generally considered NAFTA originating if the foreign materials undergo processing or assembly in North America sufficient to result in a specified change in the HTS tariff classification. Under this tariff-shift rule, depending on the good involved, NAFTA requires non-NAFTA components to be in a predetermined different HTS chapter, heading, subheading, or tariff item than the final product if the final product is to receive the agreement’s preferential duty treatment. Therefore, North American exporters know whether they have met NAFTA rule of origin requirements before shipments are sent. In January 1994, the U.S. Customs Service proposed adopting a change of tariff classification system that would affect GSP and other preferential programs (though the 35-percent rule would remain independent) and was collecting public comments on this possibility until early April. U.S. government officials and a trade expert we interviewed said that the NAFTA approach is clear and leaves little doubt as to whether a partially non-NAFTA item has been substantially transformed and will, therefore, qualify as having sufficient North American content. However, some contend that an attempt to create such a system for the GSP Program could lead to disagreements over what constitutes adequate transformation or could result in an overly protective scheme. An ITC official also pointed out that a tariff classification change system would require massive paperwork for BDC companies where documentation would be involved at every stage of transformation in order to substantiate the required change. Such a process could make compliance with rule of origin requirements difficult and discourage BDCs from using the GSP Program. Another issue was raised about the current rule of origin system related to U.S. source content of GSP items. Currently, the GSP Program does not allow for U.S. components of BDC items shipped to be considered in any way in meeting domestic content requirements (unless substantially transformed). Private sector officials expressed concern over this situation and suggested that U.S. component input be included as counting toward the 35-percent requirement. In 1992, Mexico accounted for 67 percent of all administrative exclusions. Foreign and U.S. government officials told us that they believed Mexico’s large proportion of such exclusions could possibly be attributed to high levels of imports that were eligible for GSP but instead were shipped under HTS chapter 98, subchapter II (“9802”), which provides for partial tariff elimination. These items were not shipped under GSP presumably because they could not meet GSP’s 35-percent domestic content rule of origin or simply because 9802 was the preferred option. The dutiable value of all GSP-eligible goods imported under 9802 is categorized as an administrative exclusion. In 1991, Mexico was the largest beneficiary of 9802. However, in that year $7 billion of dutiable U.S. imports from Mexico were shipped under 9802. Restrictions on GSP benefits have been enacted due to the need to balance benefits provided to BDCs with concerns over the impact on domestic interests. Further, these restrictions draw upon a recognition that GSP benefits to a BDC are meant to be temporary. The restrictions are based upon the import sensitivity of domestically produced items that would compete with GSP imports and the level of competitiveness of BDC GSP exports. Some goods are statutorily prohibited from ever obtaining GSP eligibility due to the sensitivity of specific domestic sectors to the effects of imports. These items are listed in 19 U.S.C., subsection 2463(c), and include certain textile and apparel articles and watches, as well as footwear, handbags, luggage, flat goods, work gloves, and leather wearing apparel that were not eligible for GSP on April 1, 1984. This subsection also excludes import-sensitive electronics, steel, and glass items. These exclusions are not captured in GSP data because they are not eligible for the program in the first place. Excluded textile articles were named by foreign officials we interviewed as a sector in which BDCs could benefit greatly from tariff preferences, as discussed in chapter 2. Further, any article determined to be “import-sensitive in the context of the Generalized System of Preferences” is ineligible for the program. This criterion lacks any clear definition and, as such, GSP Subcommittee members noted, allows for flexibility in administering a program that involves thousands of items in the U.S. HTS. Decisions are open to individualized considerations during the annual decision-making process, discussed in chaper 4. Articles that are granted eligibility under GSP can also be restricted from actually receiving GSP duty-free entry entirely or with respect to specific countries. According to USTR’s General Counsel (as of October 1992), 19 U.S.C., sections 2461 and 2464, can limit benefits available under the GSP Program once specific countries are deemed to be competitive in exporting specific items. Title 19 U.S.C., section 2461(4), allows the President to grant GSP benefits while keeping in mind “the extent of the beneficiary developing country’s competitiveness with respect to eligible articles.” Title 19 U.S.C., subsection 2464(a)(1), gives the President discretionary authority to “withdraw, suspend or limit the application of duty-free treatment accorded under 19 U.S.C., section 2461, with respect to any article or with respect to any country.” These provisions allow either for the permanent removal of countries (country graduation), or the removal of items from particular countries (product graduation), from GSP eligibility status. In 1981, the administration committed itself to fully utilizing product graduation policy. Product graduation is more common than the graduation of an entire country and has been controversial because it does not treat all BDCs uniformly (see pp. 20-22). USTR documents state that product graduation determinations are made after considering, among other things, the competitiveness of the BDC involved, as well as the effect of GSP treatment on U.S. interests. However, the GSP Director told us that the focus for these decisions rests on the former: an acknowledgement that a BDC’s industry is competitive, making GSP preferences no longer necessary. Permanent product graduations come about as a result of petitions submitted during the annual review process (typically by competing U.S. interests), or by precluding specific BDCs from GSP eligibility on newly designated articles. Trade experts and U.S. government officials we interviewed said that this surgical approach of graduating specific items for particular countries has increasingly become a preferred tool for the GSP Program. They said it recognizes the competitive capabilities of certain BDCs and might allow for a more even distribution of benefits among countries. One former GSP Program official told us that BDC representatives were previously openly hostile to product graduation, due to its discriminatory nature, when the United States initially committed to use it in the early 1980s. However, she said that BDCs are now accepting the credibility and usefulness of this approach, as well as the intended temporary nature of benefits under GSP. A former GSP Program director told us that since the 1989 graduation of the four Asian “newly industrializing economies” (NIE) that had dominated the program, the pressure to use product graduation to target exclusions toward competitive BDCs has been greatly diminished. Compared to other types of exclusions, permanent product graduationsdo not pose much of a barrier for GSP countries. As shown in table 3.1, exclusions from GSP benefits due to product graduations amounted to $293 million in 1989 and were $276 million in 1992. Product graduations have remained constant at 2 percent of total exclusions every year between 1989 and 1992. Only a few countries have been graduated for specific products. In 1992, countries shipping affected articles were Mexico (three items dutied on almost $156 million in U.S. imports); Brazil (five items dutied on almost $68 million); two of the four eligible republics of the former Yugoslavia; Venezuela; and Israel. Title 19 U.S.C., subsection 2464(c), allows for the suspension, often temporary, of GSP preferences for shipments of a particular item from a particular country that are defined as competitive. U.S. government officials say that these restrictions are in place because BDCs exporting at high levels tend to be more industrialized and have better export-oriented development strategies; therefore they do not need assistance to be competitive. In order to define competitiveness, the subsection enumerates specific annual import levels for any GSP-eligible item that, if exceeded in 1 calendar year by a beneficiary country, will lead to the suspension of GSP duty-free preferences for shipments of the item by the BDC that exceeded the limit. These levels equal 50 percent of total U.S. imports of an item or an absolute import value that changes from year to year. This type of exclusion is referred to as a competitive need limit. Following a statutorily mandated general review of the GSP Program that ended in January 1987, some CNL exclusions were made more restrictive. USTR reviewed itemized GSP imports from BDCs and determined which ones had “a sufficient degree of competitiveness” (relative to other BDCs). These particular articles shipped from individual BDCs are now subject to reduced CNL levels. These lower levels equal 25 percent of total U.S. imports of the item, or an absolute value. Though CNL exclusions occur much more frequently and involve more countries than product graduations, they are not necessarily permanent. A country whose exports of a CNL-excluded item subsequently fall below the percentage or value levels that initially led to the CNL exclusion may have the item “redesignated” as eligible for GSP duty-free preferences, according to 19 U.S.C., subsection 2464(c)(5). Until 1989, U.S. policy was to graduate—through failing to redesignate—products from more economically advanced BDCs. Beginning in 1989, this policy was eased, and redesignation decisions for all BDCs are now made on the same basis. These decisions are at the discretion of the President. Numerous redesignations have subsequently been made, as discussed on page 58. In addition, 19 U.S.C., subsection 2464(c)(3), states that GSP benefits can be reinstated (a waiver can be granted) for items subject to CNL restrictions. Waivers can be granted for parties that submit a petition during the annual review process. For items subject to reduced and regular CNL, a petitioned waiver can be granted for either just the lower, more restrictive limits, or for both the lower and upper limits. A waiver will remain in effect until the President determines that it is no longer warranted due to changed circumstances. In deciding whether to grant a petition for a CNL waiver, the President shall give “great weight” to accessibility to the BDC’s markets for U.S. goods and services, as well as the extent to which the BDC provides reasonable and effective protection of U.S. intellectual property rights. A CNL waiver may also be granted when total U.S. imports of a product are small, or de minimis. In 1992, the level of imports for a particular good to become eligible for a de minimis waiver was $11.8 million. All CNL waivers are automatically granted for items that were not produced in the United States on January 3, 1985, and for all items shipped from the 35 BDCs that have been designated as least developed countries by USTR (see p. 26 for a listing). Foreign business representatives we interviewed expressed concern about the unpredictable nature of CNL exclusions, under which a country will lose GSP for a certain item with only a few months’ prior notice. After the exclusion, a BDC has no way of knowing when, or even if, GSP eligibility will be reinstated through a waiver or redesignation. A former GSP director agreed with foreign and U.S. officials we interviewed that USTR’s 10-month “warning list” of items that are approaching CNL limits (using data through October and published in the Federal Register in January of the next calendar year) is essentially useless as a tool to alert countries to potential CNL problems so that action can be taken to avoid the exclusion (though it is useful as an informational source). This situation is further compounded by the lack of data on GSP exports by beneficiary countries themselves. For example, as of 1992, Brazil, the program’s fourth largest user, maintained no official data on its exports to the United States under GSP (although a computerized trade data system is being developed that would capture GSP exports). An official from the Ministry of Industry, Commerce, and Tourism told us that the Brazilian government relies on UNCTAD for data on its GSP exports to the United States. Foreign company representatives in affected industries we interviewed said that they experience immediate production and export planning problems once they learn that their article will lose GSP. Foreign government officials said that businesses also experience long-term planning problems. Further, one foreign businessman noted that not only is future planning disrupted by a loss of GSP, but past planning efforts that were aimed at initially entering the U.S. market are lost. Foreign industry officials we interviewed said that the effect on profitability due to a lost tariff differential of just a few percentage points can be very great. A Brazilian economist working for the United Nations (U.N.) noted that the impact could be particularly strong for undifferentiated items where price is the primary factor that distinguishes the beneficiary’s product in the U.S. marketplace. Suggestions were offered to soften the perceived severe impact of CNL exclusions. Foreign and UNCTAD officials we spoke with suggested that a longer adjustment period should be granted to businesses to plan for the tariff change and to find potential alternate markets before CNL exclusions are implemented. One point made by BDC government and industry officials was that CNL exclusions should be based on sustainable GSP export performance, rather than on only 1 year’s data. Unusual circumstances in 1 year that trigger a CNL exclusion may not be typical or indicative of an industry’s capability to export at competitive levels over the long run from a specific country. For example, a representative of one Brazilian sector (rods/bars of copper-zinc base) explained that the industry found itself subject to a CNL export percentage exclusion in 1991 even though its exports to the United States had not changed significantly from previous years. However, exports to the United States from other countries had decreased, and so the Brazilian industry’s proportion of U.S. imports of the item had exceeded the CNL percentage level. A former GSP Program director questioned these requests for increased leniency before exclusions are implemented, pointing out that BDCs should be taking a more active role in reducing the impact of CNL exclusions. He noted that BDCs should act to avoid CNL exclusions altogether. BDC governments should more closely monitor U.S. import statistics to determine which industries may be at future risk of exceeding competitive need limits. The BDC government could then alert industry representatives, who could file for a CNL waiver during the annual review process before any CNL level was even exceeded. The industry would then be unaffected by any future CNL exclusion if the waiver were granted. Another former GSP Program official suggested that once a product from a BDC exceeds CNL levels for a certain number of years, U.S. policy should be to completely graduate the item for the country involved. This action would add an element of predictability to the process of reducing GSP benefits for specific countries. Some foreign government officials and an industry official we interviewed referred to CNL exclusions as the major barrier to receiving benefits from the program; however, as discussed previously (see pp. 47-48), we found that the majority of exclusions from duty-free entry were due to administrative reasons in 1991 and 1992. In 1989, total CNL exclusions accounted for the largest share (66 percent) of all exclusions and were valued at $8.2 billion. Reduced CNL, which affected primarily Mexico and Brazil, accounted for 17 percent of total CNL exclusions. By 1992, total CNL exclusions had dropped to $6.7 billion (42 percent of total exclusions), with 13 percent of all CNL exclusions due to reduced CNL. One Brazilian trade association official suggested that the reason for the decreased level of CNL exclusions may be that companies simply stopped shipping the items subject to CNL or graduation limitations because of a lost crucial competitive edge. This situation would make CNL exclusions appear relatively less serious than they actually were, when compared to other types of exclusions. (This argument could also be made for permanent product graduations.) Our analysis, based on exclusions in force in 1992, concluded that the assertion that countries completely stopped shipping CNL-excluded items was mistaken, at least for that year. At the end of 1992, although 245 product/BDC pairs were officially excluded from GSP eligibility, 225 (92 percent) items had been shipped by the affected country despite a lack of GSP duty-free benefits. Instead, the recent proportional decrease in the importance of CNL relative to other exclusions over the years can be attributed to the fact that (1) administrative exclusions have increased substantially and (2) fewer items are now subject to continued CNL limitations for key countries, primarily Mexico and Brazil, because of an eased redesignation policy adopted as part of the 1989 annual review. Following implementation of this policy, the value of CNL exclusions for these countries has decreased. Mexico and Brazil accounted for the majority of CNL exclusions in 1989 and 1990 (with Mexico continuing to account for over half of all CNL exclusions in 1991 and 1992), and the size of their CNL exclusions has, to a large degree, dictated the importance of CNL in the program overall over time. The number and value of Mexican and Brazilian CNL exclusions were greatly reduced by 1992. As shown in figure 3.1, Mexico and Brazil had a smaller share of total CNL exclusions in that year when compared to 1989. At the end of 1989, Mexico was officially subject to exclusions for 285 items. Following implementation of the eased redesignation policy, Mexico had 209 items that were returned to GSP-eligible status in 1990. By the end of 1992, Mexico was officially subject to limitations for 91 products. Similarly, at the end of 1989, Brazil had 132 items that were officially excluded from receiving GSP preferences. As with Mexico, Brazil had many items (90) that regained GSP eligibility after the redesignation policy was altered. At the end of 1992, Brazil was officially excluded from GSP duty-free entry for 55 items, most of which were eligible for redesignation. Just as the eased redesignation policy has allowed items to return to GSP status, so, too, have CNL waivers lessened the impact of CNL exclusions in recent years. Items entering with CNL waivers have increased in value and proportion, from $533 million (2 percent of eligible imports) entering GSP duty free under waivers in 1989, to $2.5 billion (7 percent of eligible imports) in 1992. As seen in figure 3.2, the two countries that benefited most from CNL waivers in 1992 were Mexico and Malaysia. Mexico was the primary beneficiary, with $1.1 billion entering duty free under waivers (45 percent of all waiver benefits). While Malaysia had $593 million in imports to the United States dutied under CNL in 1992, $906 million entered duty free under CNL waivers. However, Thailand and Brazil, in addition to being two of the countries most affected by CNL exclusions, shipped no items that benefited from CNL waivers. The reduced size of CNL exclusions may not last. While smaller CNL restrictions for Mexico (in particular) and Brazil have resulted in a reduced importance for CNL exclusions in the program overall, other top shipping countries, such as Malaysia and Thailand, have had very different experiences. These two countries had growth rates in GSP duty-free shipments of about 31 and 27 percent, respectively, between 1991 and 1992. However, they had even higher increases in shipments to the United States dutied under CNL that year. Thailand had about $845 million in GSP imports enter the United States dutied because of CNL in 1992, an increase of 33 percent from 1991. Malaysia reached a level of $593 million in shipments to the United States dutied under CNL in 1992, a 245-percent increase from 1991. This growth was largely due to increased levels of exports of the same excluded items over time, rather than an increase in the number of items excluded. For example, Malaysia’s CNL exclusions in 1992 were attributable to just six products. Malaysia and Thailand now rank ahead of Brazil for imports entering the United States subject to duties due to CNL exclusions. Continued rapid growth in these CNL exclusions, combined with the graduation of Mexico, could result in an increased relative impact of CNL on the GSP Program. Due to the concern expressed about CNL exclusions by foreign business and government officials, we examined exports to the United States of (1) the affected BDC, (2) other BDCs, and (3) ineligible countries following a CNL exclusion. BDC company officials we interviewed said that a loss of GSP tariff preferences means a decreased ability to compete for sales. However, some U.S. officials said that BDCs are competitive without GSP if they are exporting beyond the statutory limits and that CNL exclusions provide increased opportunities for other BDCs. We examined data on 57 CNL product exclusions that took effect in 1990 (40 items) and 1991 (17 items) to assess the import position for the affected BDC, other BDCs, and non-GSP countries. Many of these exclusions were applied to Mexico. Our analysis showed that the results were mixed. Following the CNL exclusion, the affected BDC experienced a reduced competitive position, measured as a loss in U.S. import market share, in about 65 percent of the cases for both sets of exclusions by July 1992. The range of this share loss varied widely, from a few percentage points to a 100-percent loss. There was no pattern of share loss or gain for certain types of products. However, the excluded country was actually able to maintain or increase its import market share in up to 35 percent of the cases after the exclusion. Further, subsequent redesignations or CNL waivers softened the impact of lost import market share for about half of the 25 items excluded in 1990 that regained GSP status in 1991. The amount of GSP duty-free shipments before the CNL exclusion did not appear to be predictive of the impact the exclusion would have on the particular BDC. In addition, our analysis showed that the import market share lost by excluded BDCs was somewhat more likely to accrue to non-GSP countries, although other BDCs also improved their share, and often for the same items as non-GSP countries. In cases where the excluded BDC lost share, non-GSP countries increased their import market share for over 70 percent, while remaining BDCs increased their share for over 60 percent, of the items. In addition to the legislative prohibition of eligibility for certain items, there are other reasons for limited use of the GSP Program that are not captured in data. It is possible that GSP is not used as much as it might be because exporters simply are not familiar with GSP, particularly in countries that are not large users of the program. For example, a U.S. government official in Turkey, as well as a Turkish government official, said that the Turkish government does an inadequate job of informing Turkish exporters about the opportunities provided by the GSP Program. A business representative in Brazil said that smaller firms in that country do not even know that the program exists. In addition, some U.S. government officials and GSP experts we interviewed told us that they believe an important limitation on GSP participation is that many BDCs cannot produce and export items that are eligible under the program. This conclusion led to varying opinions by these officials on the appropriate country focus of the GSP Program. Some U.S. government officials said that there is little that the United States can do to increase use of the program for many countries. They explained that the United States should realize that domination of the program by the few countries that can produce and export is to be expected. A former GSP director pointed out that too many people mistakenly view the GSP Program as a traditional aid program, believing that if the U.S. government removes benefits from some countries, it can allocate more to other countries. He said that such an action simply is not possible with the GSP Program, where the benefits of tariff preferences are not transferable to countries that are not strong producers or exporters of the GSP-eligible goods shipped by a graduated country. For example, our analysis of CNL exclusions showed that, in the short run, other BDCs were often able to increase their U.S. import market shares when certain BDCs were excluded from receiving GSP preferences for particular items. However, these increases in market share occurred for remaining BDCs that were already shipping the affected articles. This conclusion suggests that the universe of remaining eligible BDCs that could benefit in the short run from an exclusion, whether it is a CNL, product graduation, or country graduation exclusion, is limited to those countries that are already shipping the relevant articles. The impact in the long run for all remaining BDCs is not clear. In opposing the views just mentioned, some U.S. government and trade experts said that the program should refocus its efforts to assisting and promoting growth in the less developed BDCs, rather than leaving most GSP benefits to countries that are already on the road to industrialization and would export regardless of the GSP Program. They saw the original intention of the GSP Program as one of working to improve the economic condition of the developing countries that need an extra advantage to begin or increase exporting. They said that the largest, most competitive program beneficiaries should be completely removed, or graduated, from GSP eligibility. As with product graduations, 19 U.S.C., subsection 2464(a), allows the President to graduate an entire country on a discretionary basis after examining criteria in the law used to determine a country’s original eligibility status. Since the late 1980s, eight countries or economies have been graduated from the GSP Program (Bermuda, Brunei, Hong Kong, Mexico, Nauru, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan), and an additional country (Israel) is in the process of being removed from the program. According to some U.S. government officials and trade experts, complete graduation from the GSP Program is appropriate for countries that realize high exporting levels under the program (although most government officials interviewed felt that product graduation was a more effective way to deal with competitive GSP exporters.) They stated that strong exports indicate competitiveness, probable improved economic development, and a subsequent decreased need for tariff preferences. Further, they contended that graduation of competitive and dominating countries could provide improved exporting and market opportunities for the remaining BDCs. Some U.S. government and industry officials felt that current prominent GSP users, such as Malaysia and Thailand, should be graduated from the program. One U.S. official added that if graduation is not undertaken for top-shipping BDCs, then at the very least, these countries should be held to higher standards in areas such as intellectual property protection or BDC market access. The most visible use of country graduation occurred in January of 1989, when the four NIEs (Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan) were graduated from the GSP Program. This graduation came about because of (1) concern expressed about the dominant position these four countries held in the GSP Program (58 percent of all GSP-eligible imports and 54 percent of GSP duty-free imports in 1988) and (2) a determination that the economic development of these countries had reached a level that no longer justified their participation in the program. Formal criteria cited in making the decision to remove the NIEs, in addition to their GSP shipment levels, were GNP per capita, economic growth rates, and an ability to export manufactured items into the United States. While some hoped that the graduations would improve exporting opportunities under GSP for other BDCs, others argued that it would be just as likely that developed, non-GSP countries would increase their exports of these goods. The circumstances surrounding Singapore’s graduation were often singled out as unacceptable by trade experts we interviewed. Throughout most of the 1980s, Singapore did not protect U.S. (or any foreign) copyrighted goods. According to an official representing U.S. intellectual property interests, the U.S. government, pointing out the magnitude of financial losses to U.S. interests due to pirating of copyrighted U.S. works, informed Singapore that if copyright protection for U.S. goods were not soon provided, then that country would lose GSP benefits. Singapore, the fourth largest beneficiary under GSP, had duty-free shipments under the program of $1.3 billion in 1987. This industry representative pointed out that in order to protect U.S. copyrighted goods, Singapore needed to (1) pass a new copyright law and (2) either sign a multilateral convention to protect copyrighted works of other signatories (such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) or enter into a bilateral agreement with the United States to afford reciprocal protection. Singapore passed a new copyright law in February 1987, and the United States and Singapore subsequently extended reciprocal copyright protection, through a bilateral agreement, in April of that year. With this newly enacted protection of U.S. copyrighted works, Singapore believed its status under GSP to be secure. However, just 9 months later, in January 1988, the United States announced that Singapore would be graduated entirely from the program beginning in 1989. Many U.S. intellectual property representatives were alarmed by this move, stating that it signaled bad faith on the part of the United States. One industry official stated that Singapore still resents and raises this issue, which has made current intellectual property discussions with that country more difficult. A former USTR official we interviewed countered that the decision to graduate Singapore was made based on overriding trade and economic factors entirely apart from IPR, and, under the political climate of the time, the country would have been removed regardless of the status of its IPR regime. Although the graduation of the four Asian NIEs had a great impact on the overall GSP Program figures and saw the imports of GSP-eligible goods from the four NIEs decrease, the action appears to have had an unclear effect on the level of GSP-eligible exports of the remaining BDCs, as shown in table 3.2. In 1988, the last year of program eligibility for the four Asian NIEs, total GSP-eligible imports to the United States from all BDCs amounted to almost $50 billion. Over $18 billion received GSP duty-free entry. The NIEs shipped almost $29 billion, or 60 percent, of eligible imports, and $9.85 billion of this amount received duty-free entry. Once the NIEs were graduated, GSP-eligible imports from BDCs dropped by over 50 percent, to $24.4 billion in 1989, while duty-free imports fell by 45 percent, to $10 billion. The four NIEs accounted for almost 19 percent of total U.S. imports of GSP-covered articles in 1988. This U.S. import market share dropped upon graduation to about 16 percent in 1989 and reached a low of just over 13 percent in 1992. With the NIEs now among their ranks, non-GSP countries increased their share of GSP-eligible U.S. imports in 1989 to over 86 percent, from about 68 percent in 1988. This share has been decreasing slightly ever since. All GSP-eligible countries increased their share of U.S. imports of eligible items every year following the graduations, rising from almost 14 percent in 1989 to 17 percent in 1992. However, it is difficult to conclude that the modest increase in U.S. import market share of imports from GSP-eligible countries was specifically due to the NIEs’ 1989 graduations, since these BDCs had increased their portion of eligible imports even before the graduations. Further, the NIEs had been losing U.S. import market share before the graduations occurred. An evaluation of country graduation done through the U.N.’s Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific in 1992 suggested, as did our analysis, that the trade impact on the graduated countries was negative. The evaluation also claimed that remaining Asian GSP-eligible countries realized an influx of foreign direct investment after the NIEs’ graduation at the expense of the four NIEs. The U.N. study stated that other Asian BDCs were able to increase imports to the United States somewhat because of the NIE graduations. However, these countries maintained internal production and regulatory barriers that have kept them from fully exploiting any increased opportunities provided by the removal of the NIEs from the program. Officials from some of the program’s current top user countries told us that they did not believe their countries had been able to benefit more from GSP after the NIE graduations. Some U.S. government officials said that they do not believe country graduation based on economic development will be used again any time soon. They pointed out that there are not likely to be cases as clear-cut as the Asian NIEs in the near future. A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) official pointed out that even Mexico is not yet at the development level of the Asian NIEs. Other top-ranking users of the program, such as Brazil, have such disparate development levels within the countries themselves that it could be counterproductive to the BDC development goals of the GSP Program to graduate an entire country, including sectors that use GSP and are located in underdeveloped regions of the country. Title 19 U.S.C., subsection 2464(f), mandates that no country may continue to receive GSP preferences if it exceeds a specific GNP per capita level. The GNP per capita ceiling for GSP eligibility in 1984 was $8,500, and increases in this amount are pegged to growth in U.S. GNP. The GNP per capita ceiling in 1992 was $10,647. In 1988, Bahrain, Bermuda, Brunei, and Nauru were removed from GSP eligibility due to their having per capita GNPs that were over the legislated limit. Bahrain was reinstated in 1990, after an analysis of revised national income data and a subsequent determination that the country had in fact not exceeded the statutory GNP per capita limit. Having a high GNP per capita level was the stated reason for graduating Israel over a 2-year period, to be completed in July 1995. The Bahamas, a current BDC, has a GNP per capita (1991 GNP per capita of $11,720) over the legislated limit. Nearly half of GSP-eligible imports did not receive duty-free entry in 1992. Although administrative exclusions have accounted for the majority of total exclusions in recent years, it is probable that with Mexico’s removal from the program, along with the rapid growth in competitive need limit exclusions for top shippers such as Malaysia and Thailand, competitive need limits will again become the primary type of exclusion. The BDCs we visited have legitimate concerns over CNL. The premise behind the automatic CNL exclusions—that a BDC’s industry is a competitive exporter once these levels are reached and so no longer needs GSP—can be questioned. Only 1 year of data is used in order to trigger an exclusion, during which time external factors that may have little to do with a specific BDC industry’s competitiveness can affect U.S. import levels. While CNL exclusions are intended to remove products that are considered competitive, our data indicated that a loss of GSP due to CNL was often followed by a decrease in import market share. Further, unlike product graduation, domestic interests have no input into this process, and no U.S. government judgment is made concerning particular items and their competitiveness. The implementation of a CNL exclusion can be disruptive and destabilizing for the BDC industry and U.S. importers affected. GSP duty-free preferences are lost for at least a year, unless the industry has the foresight to apply for a waiver a year before it is needed. Once a CNL exclusion is triggered, the industry has only a few months’ notice to prepare for the loss of GSP duty elimination. This circumstance undermines the program’s intent of fostering economic growth and stability for BDCs. It is possible that granting a longer period before CNL exclusions take effect could counteract these problems. For example, after a BDC’s industry exceeds the CNL, the industry could be granted an additional 1-year period during which the BDC industry could apply for a waiver and a second year of data would be collected. At the end of this additional year, a decision would be made whether to grant the waiver or, if the data show an import situation consistent with the first year for the industry, to deny it and allow the CNL exclusion to take effect. Any domestic concerns over whether to extend duty-free preferences with a waiver could be assessed on a case-by-case basis during the additional year. For example, product graduation could be applied to BDC items that are found to be exported competitively as a result of examining domestic concerns. Product graduation, while currently accounting for a small percentage of exclusions, is an effective way of targeting competitive BDC products for exclusion from GSP. Concerned U.S. producers, at their request, can receive relief from imports that they consider competitive. Further, product graduation is executed in a targeted manner that does not disrupt a country’s less competitive industries, as can happen when an entire BDC is graduated. However, once a certain overall level of country development is reached, country graduation is appropriate. GSP rules of origin cause problems due to the lack of predictability. BDC shippers cannot be sure that their products will meet the rules and qualify for GSP. In addition, the current rule states that at least 35 percent of the product must originate or be substantially transformed within the BDC and does not allow for any consideration of U.S. source material in meeting this requirement. NAFTA, and the Canadian Free Trade Agreement before it, has rules of origin largely based on an imported product’s change of U.S. HTS tariff heading from its constituent parts. This system has generally proven to be simpler and surer to administer and allows exporters to know their eligibility status before shipping. However, it may be more difficult for BDCs to comply with the paperwork requirements associated with a change in tariff classification system. In addition, some items utilize provisions of trade law (U.S. HTS heading 9802) that allow the U.S.-origin content of certain goods to reenter the United States duty free. Therefore, it seems inconsistent to U.S. interests to disqualify items from entering GSP duty free because they have significant U.S. input that precludes the items from attaining 35-percent BDC content. In considering whether to reauthorize the GSP Program, Congress may wish to consider altering the competitive need limit process in order to allow for a more thorough assessment of the competitiveness of the affected imports by, for example, extending the amount of time before exclusions under CNL are implemented. This would allow for a more thorough assessment of the competitiveness of the affected imports and allow affected industries more time to adjust. Congress may also wish to consider whether to alter the GSP rules so that items are not penalized for having U.S. content. For example, any U.S.-origin value of a shipped item could be subtracted from the total value of the item before the 35-percent BDC origin value added is calculated. The GSP Program has a generally well-structured administrative process for consideration of petitions to add or remove products from GSP coverage. The interagency structure of the GSP Subcommittee and its consensus decision-making process is designed to ensure that the program’s goals are balanced to provide benefits to BDCs while taking care not to unduly harm domestic interests. The annual petition review process, with clearly delineated procedures and time frames, provides an effective means for management of the program. The GSP review process is transparent up to the decision-making point. It provides interested parties with the opportunity to petition for changes and for a public hearing on these petitions. It allows all parties to know who is petitioning or opposing a petition and the evidence they have presented to support their position, as well as an opportunity to rebut opposing views. A number of specific issues were raised in our interviews, however, about certain aspects of the administrative process. Decision-making criteria, such as the “import sensitivity” of a product or the achievement of “sufficient competitiveness” in the U.S. market, that are provided in the GSP statute are undefined. Such criteria are difficult to articulate or quantify, requiring case-by-case judgments. This difficulty was the source of much of the controversy in the product petitions we reviewed. While most petitions were not controversial and were routinely decided based on economic merit, we found that the more controversial the case and the higher in the trade policy structure it was elevated, the more other policy factors became determinative. Another issue raised related to the transparency of the reasoning behind decisions on whether to grant or deny a product petition. USTR makes no public statement, although by regulation it must respond in writing to a written request for information by the petitioner. During the 1991 Special Review for Central and Eastern Europe, the administrative waiver of the rule that 3 years must pass before a product addition petition is refiled caused much controversy. The waiver created the perception among affected domestic industries that the program had been politicized, and they questioned the credibility of the program. Finally, the GSP Subcommittee has occasionally accepted petitions that did not contain information required in the regulations. Although the regulations allow such an action if the petitioner made a good faith effort to obtain the missing information, domestic producers felt they were disadvantaged because often very little information was available to oppose a petition. A fundamental issue was also raised about providing differential treatment to BDCs under a generalized system. Specifically questioned was whether differential treatment was legal under the U.S.’ GATT obligations, and whether the President had statutory authority and discretion to make such differential decisions. “Differential treatment” means that imports of a particular product from a particular BDC lose GSP eligibility if such imports are deemed to be sufficiently competitive. Such decisions (“permanent product graduations”) are made at the discretion of the President. We found that the GSP statute provides the President with full authority to differentiate between countries as well as to make product designations on a differential basis. Further, the practice is not inconsistent with U.S. obligations under GATT because the GSP Program is exempt from GATT obligations, according to a GATT official. (See also ch. 1.) The GSP law requires ITC advice on the probable economic impact of granting GSP duty-free treatment to a product. Most of the GSP Subcommittee members we spoke to said that this advice is valuable to the interagency decision-making process as an impartial analysis of the likely economic effects on U.S. producers and consumers. However, U.S. industry officials expressed some concern that the usefulness of ITC advice might be limited by outdated information used in ITC analyses. U.S. industry officials also complained that USTR’s classifying as confidential ITC’s assessment of probable economic effect undercuts program transparency. USTR’s annual review of product eligibility focuses on petitions to add or remove items, which petitioners must submit by the June 1 deadline. At that time, USTR launches a two-stage decision cycle. In the first stage, June 1 to about mid-July, a decision is made on which petitions to accept for review. In the second stage, late July to around the end of the following April, the accepted petitions are reviewed and a decision is made on which petitions should be granted and which denied. GSP eligibility changes go into effect on July 1. This GSP decision-making time frame and the broad outlines of the review process are stipulated in the GSP regulations. GSP petitions are reviewed by members of the interagency GSP Subcommittee. One agency takes the lead on each petition, providing a written report and recommendation on each. Generally, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture review the largest number of petitions because they have the relevant industry sector expertise. However, GSP officials repeatedly stressed that the recommendation of the lead agency is not always followed. The GSP Subcommittee deliberates on each case and makes its decisions by consensus. Decisions are made by consensus because the GSP Subcommittee tries to balance the basic program objective of assisting developing countries against possible harm to domestic industries. The GSP Subcommittee includes the various government agencies that are integral to achieving this balance of interests. ITC and GSP agency officials told us that generally, USTR, State, and the Treasury support free trade and enhancing assistance to BDCs, while Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior represent their particular domestic constituencies. Labor, while concerned with product petitions, is more focused on worker rights petitions (discussed in ch. 5). The need for consensus forces the GSP Subcommittee to balance the diverse views and interests of its members. In the first stage of the annual review, which begins on June 1, the GSP Subcommittee has a 6-week period in which to decide which petitions to accept for full review. It checks that none of the petitions had been submitted and denied in the past 3 years and that none of the products already had duty-free status under MFN. It reviews import statistics for the prior 3 years and the first quarter of the current year to identify growth rates and trends over time. The recommendation of the lead agency is considered, together with views of other members. At the end of the 6-week period, the GSP Subcommittee makes its consensus recommendations, which are submitted for approval to TPSC and TPRG and then forwarded for the President’s final decision. The decision on which petitions to accept for full review is published in the Federal Register. This notification also announces the hearing schedule and invites interested parties to testify or submit written statements. The second stage of the GSP decision-making process, the full interagency review of accepted petitions, begins in mid-July and ends the following April. USTR requests economic impact advice from ITC, as mandated by GSP law. The GSP Subcommittee and ITC hold separate hearings to receive public comment. USTR makes a point of ensuring that the public comment process and hearings are as “transparent” as possible by making petitions and all submissions by interested parties publicly available in the USTR reading room. It allows all parties to know who is petitioning or opposing a petition and the evidence they have presented to support their position, as well as an opportunity to rebut opposing views. USTR will also accept subsequent written submissions by interested parties right up to the point at which the GSP Subcommittee’s recommendations are due. The GSP Subcommittee does not officially solicit advice on petitions from either Industry Sector Advisory Committees or Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees as a part of the review process, according to the GSP Deputy Director. However, he said that such advice would be welcome at GSP hearings or during the review process and that members of these advisory committees have testified at hearings and sent written comments in the past. After its review of petitions is completed and a consensus is reached, the GSP Subcommittee makes its recommendations in a draft TPSC paper that is circulated among TPSC members for their approval. Because the agencies are encouraged to take positions and resolve differences at the GSP Subcommittee level, disputes are generally settled there, according to subcommittee members. However, if consensus is not reached by the GSP Subcommittee, TPSC will meet to resolve disputes. GSP Subcommittee members noted that no agency agrees on all recommendations, but that they operate on a consensus basis. The subcommittee’s draft TPSC paper is a package, and is approved as a package, even though an agency may not agree on all the individual cases. Depending on how strong an agency’s opposition is, it may go along with the group consensus or fight certain recommendations at the TPSC or the TPRG level. The members of TPRG are generally political appointees at the under secretary level, or their representatives. TPRG is chaired by a deputy U.S. Trade Representative. TPRG focuses on resolving areas of disagreement and is considered to be “the end of the line” in resolving disputes over petitions. According to the GSP Director, no problems have been elevated to the cabinet level. The TPRG recommendation is sent for approval to the U.S. Trade Representative, who in turn sends the decision package to the President. The White House has its own deliberations on any contentious issues. Under the GSP statute, the President has the ultimate authority to decide GSP petitions. The GSP Subcommittee, TPSC, or TPRG can only recommend; the decision is the President’s. White House staff may request additional facts from USTR. However, according to the GSP Director, they normally defer to the recommendations of TPRG as forwarded to the White House by the U.S. Trade Representative. Then the President makes the decision for each petition, leaving no written explanation behind. According to the GSP Deputy Director, no voting record is available for the GSP Subcommittee, TPSC, or TPRG. The decision process is consensus based and, for the GSP Subcommittee and TPSC, the members usually vote on a package, not on individual petitions. We compiled information on decisions made on petitions filed in the 1989-91 annual reviews and the two special reviews in 1989 and 1991. Table 4.1 shows petition results in these five reviews. In the 1990 and 1989 annual reviews and the 1989 Andean special review, about 50-60 percent of the petitions were granted to add or remove items, or to waive competitive need limits. Approvals dropped to 35 percent in the 1991 annual review because all petitions submitted by Mexico were denied in order not to undercut ongoing NAFTA negotiations. However, without the petitions related to Mexico, 67 percent of the cases were granted. In the 1991 Central and East European special review, 80 percent of the cases were granted. However, the number of petitions granted should also be looked at in the context of the potential import value of the items. For example, the 74 items granted and added in the 1991 special review had imports valued at $19 million from the target Central and East European countries and $52 million from all GSP beneficiaries in 1991, the year before the inclusion of these items in GSP. In contrast, while only 23 new items were granted and added in the 1991 annual review, their imports in 1991 reached a value of over $400 million, of which one item (oriental tobacco) alone had imports valued at $248 million. Therefore, though far more items were granted and added in the 1991 special review, the potential value of GSP shipments was far greater as a result of the 23 items added in the 1991 annual review. Most interested parties we interviewed were generally satisfied with the administrative structure of the GSP Program in regard to product petition cases, although some specific concerns were raised about program administration, particularly by some U.S. producers. A positive assessment of GSP was provided over a broad spectrum of “interested parties”—foreign government officials, UNCTAD officials, U.S. and foreign business representatives, trade experts, and trade association officials—whom we interviewed. We found that there was a general view that the GSP Subcommittee has done a good job in administering the program for product petitions. The exception to this opinion was in the U.S. agricultural sector, where there were mixed views, and the chemical sector, where there were negative views. UNCTAD officials knowledgeable about GSP praised the U.S. program as being the most transparent and among the simplest of GSP programs worldwide. Many foreign government officials and business representatives, as well as U.S. business representatives, believed that the U.S. program was fairly and transparently administered and gave them adequate opportunity to present their views on product cases of interest to them. However, some U.S. agricultural and chemical producers had negative views, asserting that the GSP Program’s duty-free imports could harm the competitiveness of their companies. Such concern was expressed by agricultural sectors such as the dairy and cheese industry, wine producers, and California pear growers. A number of specific issues were raised, however, pertaining to program administration. We analyzed concerns that were raised about the GSP process relating to decision-making criteria, decision-making based on economic merit or policy considerations, transparency of the reasoning used in decisions, waiver of the 3-year rule, and completeness of petitions. Statutory criteria for decision-making in GSP cases, such as “import sensitivity” and “sufficient competitiveness,” are not defined. Some foreign government officials, business representatives, and petitioners noted that a lack of objective criteria allows the GSP Subcommittee to interpret GSP provisions subjectively and makes it difficult for petitioners to assess the strength of their cases, detracting from the transparency of the program. The GSP statute, in section 2463(c), provides that the President may not designate any article as an eligible article that he determines to be import sensitive in the context of GSP. (The GSP statute is found in title V of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.) However, the statute does not define import sensitivity in the GSP context. In section 2464(c)(2)(B), the statute provides that the reduced competitive need limits provision will apply if, after a general review, the President determines that “a beneficiary developing country has demonstrated a sufficient degree of competitiveness (relative to other beneficiary developing countries) with respect to any eligible article . . . .” Again, no definition of what constitutes “sufficient competitiveness” is provided. According to GSP officials, ITC officials, and trade experts, such definitions are difficult to articulate or quantify. They run the risk of being so broad as to be meaningless or so narrowly and rigidly defined as to be limiting. What is import sensitive or sufficiently competitive is essentially a judgment that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis for each product and beneficiary country. The records of the interagency deliberations and public hearing briefs provided ample evidence that, even when the same data were used, differing parties could arrive at vastly different judgments. And in most cases, opposing parties were not in agreement on the data, let alone the economic impact. Many of the GSP Program experts that we interviewed said that although well-defined and articulated GSP criteria would be nice to have, they did not believe such definitions were feasible. Further, they feared that an attempt to statutorily define these criteria would result in rigid, narrowly focused definitions that could hamper achieving program objectives. The GSP Subcommittee has, however, developed its own informal guidelines for use in its decision-making process. According to the GSP Director, some key factors the GSP Subcommittee considers in determining import sensitivity include (1)the current share of the U.S. market accounted for by imports, both from GSP and non-GSP countries; (2)growth trends, both of imports and of U.S. production, consumption, and exports; (3)the current tariff levels; (4)the overall health of the U.S. industry and trends in U.S. industry performance; (5)the international competitiveness of imports from GSP countries, in terms of factors such as price and quality; and (6)the extent to which GSP imports could be expected to displace imports from non-GSP countries, as opposed to U.S. production. However, the GSP Subcommittee has not formalized these guidelines or made them publicly available. A related issue raised by some domestic industries was whether the GSP Subcommittee assessed injury or threat of injury to U.S. industry when considering a product petition. The GSP Director said that the subcommittee does not directly consider injury or threat of injury during its deliberations. The concept of injury or threat of injury does not arise in the GSP statute. Rather, the statute requires that the President base a decision regarding a product’s eligibility on whether it is import sensitive. However, the GSP Director stressed that import sensitivity clearly has a lower threshold than injury: if an industry is injured, it is import sensitive, but it can be import sensitive long before the industry is injured. In addition, GSP coverage is affected by other U.S. government trade actions, such as antidumping duties or duties levied to counteract foreign government subsidies. The difficulty in defining what is import sensitive or sufficiently competitive has direct implications for decision-making in GSP cases. According to current and former GSP Subcommittee members, most product petitions are not controversial and do not lead to strong opposition by domestic producers. GSP Subcommittee recommendations are routinely based on economic merit. However, when petitions are controversial, decision-making becomes more complex. Our review of 45 cases in the 1991 annual review and the 1991 Central and Eastern Europe special review indicated that the inability to reach consensus on what is import sensitive or sufficiently competitive is often at the heart of the interagency debate. And clearly, the more controversial the case and the higher it is elevated in the trade policy structure, the more other policy factors become determinative. BDC governments may use foreign policy leverage; Members of Congress weigh in for or against; and domestic producers and industry associations, as well as importers, may stress their view of the petition’s potential impact. A relatively small percentage of the cases in the 1991 annual review or the 1991 special review were controversial. GSP Subcommittee members emphasized that most petitions were not opposed by domestic producers and were decided based on their economic merits. Typically, from 80 to 130 petitions may be considered during the stage two full review (see table 4.1), and only a few are controversial. In the 1991 annual review and the 1991 special review, about 15 percent of cases were considered to be problematic enough to elevate to TPRG for resolution. In both reviews, the controversial cases included multiple petitions for various types of the same general product (i.e., four petitions on four different kinds of widgets). We examined the case study records and interagency documents to see how the decision-making process worked in cases that caused interagency controversy or were strongly opposed by a domestic industry. We found that in cases in which the GSP Subcommittee reached consensus that a product was not import sensitive and that the petition should be granted, but domestic producers were vehemently opposed, the petition was generally elevated to TPSC or TPRG for resolution. In cases in which the GSP Subcommittee was unable to reach consensus, it was usually because one or two agencies strongly dissented from the majority view. The stronger the dissent, the higher the case was elevated in the trade policy structure. Invariably, in these high-profile cases, there were deep divisions on what the economic impact would be, to what extent domestic producers were import sensitive, and what constituted a level of imports that would harm domestic industry. The recommendations of the GSP Subcommittee were at times reversed by TPSC or TPRG, and the President decided cases differently from the recommendations forwarded to him as well. In 14 of the 45 cases we studied, recommendations were reversed, with 5 by TPSC, 6 by TPRG, and 3 by the President. In most cases, the action was to reverse a petition approval to a denial. This reversal rate is not representative of the reversal rate for all cases because we specifically included all of the controversial cases in our case study analysis, and, according to the GSP Director, the 1991 special review had a higher number of controversial cases than normal. This selection of cases may account for a higher percentage of changed results than would be usual. Trade policy is generally acknowledged to be a part of foreign policy; it is also a function of domestic policy. The fact that the GSP Program sits at the juxtaposition of these two sometimes opposing forces is at the heart of the balancing act required of the GSP Subcommittee: to assist developing countries to increase exports to the U.S. market while not harming domestic producers. The easy decisions on petitions only happened when the product was not domestically produced or when the BDC only took market share away from developed country exports, resulting in a neutral impact for the domestic market. But where there were domestic producers who were likely to lose any notable degree of market share, then the debate over what level of imports causes harm was triggered. The debate became even more contentious when there were domestic importers who did want the benefit of duty-free entry of that product. Obviously, the domestic producer was not enthusiastic about any loss of market share, while domestic importers generally disputed estimates of harmful impact and stressed potential benefits to themselves, U.S. consumers, and the BDC producers. One of the problems related to perspective. ITC and the GSP Subcommittee looked at the big picture and at aggregate or economywide effects (“only 3 percent potential loss of U.S. market share”). The domestic producer whose plant may have been the one experiencing a hefty portion of the potential 3-percent sales loss took a strongly micro view (“losses of this magnitude may put me out of business and mean a loss of hundreds/thousands of local jobs”). In our case studies, the higher in the trade policy structure the controversial cases were elevated, the more other policy considerations assumed importance. GSP Subcommittee members and a GSP expert confirmed that when a petition becomes controversial and is elevated in the trade policy decision-making structure, economic merit becomes less determinative and other policy considerations become more determinative of the final decision. In the end the decision is made by the President, who is the ultimate arbiter of policy decisions. We believe this is in keeping with the tenor of the GSP statute, which gives the President broad discretion in decision-making. The GSP Program is highly transparent in terms of receiving public comments from all interested parties and holding public hearings on petitions accepted for full review. However, once the public comment and hearing process is completed and the interagency decision-making process begins, transparency largely ends. The decision-making process itself is confidential. Only the membership of the GSP Subcommittee is made public; the membership of TPSC and TPRG is not disclosed. The internal deliberations of the GSP Subcommittee, TPSC, TPRG, and the White House are kept confidential. The reason given by USTR is the desire to avoid pressure on individuals by foreign or domestic interests. Many parties we interviewed accepted this process but complained that there is no public statement explaining the decision made by the President. GSP regulations require that a written request by a petitioner for an explanation of a decision will receive a written response from the GSP office. The GSP Director stated that such requests are honored and noted that such responses are the only public information about decisions in product cases. Foreign participants in the GSP Program expressed concern that many parties were unaware of the reasoning for petition decisions and often did not know that they had a right to request and receive an explanation. Some said that they simply assumed petitions were denied due to protectionism—that domestic interests had prevailed. Likewise, a domestic agricultural industry association representative said that his membership generally has not gotten any feedback on decisions. He also noted that his association had lost very few cases and had not requested explanations. GSP regulations (15 C.F.R. 2007.0(a)(1)) state that a petition to add a product, once denied, cannot be refiled for 3 years. The rule was added in 1984 to preclude the filing of the same GSP petition year after year, which can unduly burden the GSP review process. Defending against repetitive petitions was also seen as an unacceptable burden for domestic producers. Our review indicated that the first waiver of the 3-year rule, during the 1991 Central and East European special review, was an administrative action that caused particular concern for domestic industries. The administration decision to rereview five cases that had been denied in the 1990 annual review just 97 days earlier created the perception in the affected industries that the GSP Program had been politicized. This perception undermined the credibility of the program and the sense of stability of those industries. The administration had decided as a matter of policy that it would examine every petition that it could legally accept in order to demonstrate its commitment to assisting the emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe. USTR officials advised Members of Congress and domestic industries on numerous occasions that this did not predispose the results of the special review; the administration just needed to take a comprehensive look as part of the President’s Trade Enhancement Initiative for the region. The affected domestic industries did not assume that the five rereviewed cases would again be denied. The industries had to mobilize and fund opposition in another review cycle, which they said they bitterly resented in the midst of the 1991 recession. In the end, as shown in table 4.2, the President decided to grant GSP status for two rereviewed cases and deny it for two others. One case was withdrawn by the original petitioner. Interviews with affected domestic industries, and information in hearing records, made it clear that the waiver of the 3-year rule undercut the credibility of the GSP Program and its image of fairness. Although the affected industries said they were sympathetic to U.S. assistance to the emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe, the waiver of the 3-year rule for GSP cases that had just been decided was not acceptable to them. The domestic industries said that GSP reauthorization should codify the 3-year rule and disallow waivers. In spring 1993, the U.S. Trade Representative assured Members of Congress that no cases would be rereviewed during the interval before program renewal. The Director of the GSP Program advised us that TPSC’s action was not a waiver of the 3-year rule, but its self-initiation of cases as allowed by the GSP regulations at 15 C.F.R. 2007.0(f). Subsection (f) states that TPSC “may at any time, on its own motion, initiate any of the actions described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section” to request reviews of GSP eligibility for products and BDCs. He said that TPSC had erred in originally referring to its action as a waiver of the 3-year rule in the Federal Register notice announcing the special review. However, he also acknowledged that this action had the same effect as a waiver. The GSP Director’s position was that the 3-year rule applies to new petitions to add products and not to reviews self-initiated by TPSC. Therefore, the 3-year rule did not have to be waived and was not waived. It is our opinion that there is merit in the Director’s position that the “at any time” language in subsection (f) could overcome the 3-year rule in subsection (a). Further, the USTR General Counsel’s position is that USTR has the right to waive the 3-year rule, which is its own procedural rule, since the rule did not vest a right in a party, nor did it confer a substantive benefit. Thus, TPSC could have waived the 3-year rule. We believe there is merit in the General Counsel’s argument that TPSC could waive the 3-year rule since it is merely a procedural rule designed to reduce the possibility that articles would be subjected to repeated and overburdening review. Regulations, whether substantive or procedural, are generally considered to be either statutory (legislative), which have the effect of a statute and therefore bind the agency, or interpretive, which may or may not be binding on the agency. It would appear that 15 C.F.R. 2007.0(a)(1) is not a statutory regulation and therefore is not presumed to be binding. The GSP Subcommittee has on occasion accepted for review product-addition petitions that did not fully meet all the regulatory information requirements, if it believed the petition may have had merit and the petitioner had made a good faith effort to obtain the information. This acceptance helps BDCs that often do not have the resources to adequately prepare petitions. A subcommittee member told us the subcommittee felt that the BDC should at least have the benefit of a full review if it makes a good faith effort. This action is allowed under the GSP regulations and is consistent with the program’s objectives of assisting BDCs. The GSP Director stressed that the subcommittee looked at trade data from all BDCs, not just the BDC petitioning. He said that the purpose of the review is to look at all available information; there is no presumption that an item will get GSP coverage. Domestic producers, on the other hand, said that they had to protect their interests in regard to all relevant petitions, which was costly and time-consuming; they particularly resented having to do so in response to petitions that were not well developed. In addition, domestic producers complained that acceptance of incomplete petitions effectively shifted the burden of proof from the petitioner to those opposing the petition. Incomplete petitions are difficult to oppose because there may be few other sources of information on the BDC petitioner or other potential BDC suppliers. GSP product-addition petitions require detailed information such as (1) actual production figures and capacity utilization, and their estimated increase with GSP; (2) total exports, including principal markets, total quantity and value, and trends in exports; and (3) exports to the United States in terms of quantity, value, and price, and considerations that affect the competitiveness of these exports relative to exports by other beneficiary countries. Another major issue in the administration of the GSP Program was differential treatment of BDCs under the graduation policy. Specific questions raised by the requesters of this report were whether it is appropriate to restrict preferences for some BDCs under a generalizedsystem, whether such differential treatment is legal under the U.S.’ GATT obligations, and whether the President has statutory authority and discretion to make such differential decisions. The U.S. GSP Program is normally administered to extend the opportunity for benefits equally to all BDCs (consistent with the most-favored-nation principle of GATT). However, the program does provide for terminating duty-free entry for a particular product from individual BDCs when they are considered to be sufficiently competitive without the GSP benefit. This “permanent product graduation” is a major element of GSP graduation policy. Such decisions are made at the discretion of the President, based on recommendations of the GSP Subcommittee. It is our opinion that the GSP statute gives the President authority to make such decisions for differential treatment. “Differential treatment” refers to the exclusion of a particular beneficiary country for a particular product under GSP, at the discretion of the President. Such product graduation can take place as the result of (1) granting a petition requesting such a product graduation during an annual review, (2) excluding an individual BDC from GSP eligibility on products added to GSP coverage, and (3) denying a redesignation or waiver to BDCs eligible for reinstatement of GSP status on specific articles subject to a competitive need limit exclusion. GSP’s graduation policy considers: (1)the BDC’s developmental level; (2)the BDC’s competitive position in the product concerned; (3)the BDC’s practices relating to trade, investment, and worker rights; and (4)the overall economic interests of the United States, including the effect continued GSP treatment would have on the relevant U.S. producers, workers, and consumers. According to USTR officials, differential treatment of BDCs under GSP graduation policy is grounded in the international trade rules in GATT. As discussed in chapter 1 (see pp. 20-22), GSP itself is an exception to the GATT’s MFN treatment in providing temporary preferential tariff treatment for developing countries. Specifically, it was left to each donor country to define “developing country” for purposes of GSP eligibility. This discretion is viewed as the basis for permitting nongeneralized application of the GSP status. The idea that developing countries are to graduate from programs of preferential treatment as their economies develop is contained in the enabling clause specifically incorporating GSP into GATT in 1979. Thus, the enabling clause serves as the legal basis permitting differential treatment, both in allowing preferential GSP treatment for BDCs in the first place and also in limiting the extent of preferences granted. USTR’s General Counsel also stated that other GSP programs, such as those of the EU and Japan, similarly differentiate among developing countries with respect to particular products. UNCTAD and GATT officials agreed that GSP programs can differentiate among BDCs. They said that GSP is outside the GATT legal system and, as such, is a unilateral “gift” that the donor countries can structure as they wish. It is the position of the USTR General Counsel that there is a statutory basis for the President’s discretionary decisions differentiating between GSP-eligible products and countries in 19 U.S.C. sections 2461 and 2464(a)(1). Section 2461 states that the President “may” extend GSP coverage to “any eligible article” from a BDC. In taking any such action, the President is required to consider, among other things, the extent of the BDC’s competitiveness with respect to eligible articles (19 U.S.C. 2461(4)). Section 2464(a)(1) authorizes the President to limit an individual BDC’s GSP preference, stating that “he President may withdraw, suspend, or limit the application” of GSP duty-free treatment “with respect to any article or with respect to any country.” According to the USTR General Counsel, because the phrase uses the singular “country,” this provision authorizes the President to limit any one country’s participation in the GSP Program without limiting others. Further evidence of the President’s discretion to limit an individual country’s benefits is found in the legislative history of section 2461(4). The House Ways and Means Committee report, House Report 98-1090, states that Congress was authorizing the President to differentiate among countries as to their eligibility for GSP benefits with respect to particular articles based upon a country’s competitiveness. A country could be found competitive with respect to a certain article either on the basis of statutory criteria (the “competitive need limit” in section 2464(c)) or as an exercise of the President’s authority under section 2461. We believe that the GSP statute does provide the basis for differentiating among countries as well as making product designations on a differential basis. The GSP law requires ITC advice on the probable economic impact of the designation of a product as an eligible article to receive GSP duty-free treatment and whether the grant of a waiver of the competitive need limits would be likely to adversely affect any industry in the United States. ITC’s impartial advice is to balance the more partisan analyses of GSP agencies, petitioners, and U.S. producers. Based on a review of the ITC reports to USTR, a review of 45 case study records, and interviews with GSP and ITC officials, this advice is valuable to the interagency decision-making process as an impartial analysis of the likely economic effects on U.S. producers and consumers. However, some U.S. industry officials were concerned that the value of ITC advice might be limited by outdated information used in ITC analyses. U.S. industry officials also objected to USTR’s requirement that the economic impact advice be classified as confidential. The ITC role in the GSP Program is twofold: first, to provide USTR the best available information for each product being considered for GSP designation and, second, to provide its judgment of the likely economic impact on U.S. interests if GSP status is granted to the product under consideration. The Trade Act of 1974 requires that USTR obtain ITC advice on the probable economic effect of granting GSP eligibility before it changes the list of GSP-eligible articles. ITC is to consider the effect on U.S. industries producing like or directly competitive articles and on U.S. consumers. According to ITC and USTR officials, ITC does not make recommendations to USTR on whether a product petition should be granted or denied. ITC’s judgment as to the probable economic effect of GSP designation is considered along with other factors in USTR’s decision-making process. According to an ITC official, ITC plays a limited role in the first stage decisions on whether to accept petitions for review. An ITC technical person advises the GSP Subcommittee on tariff classification or nomenclature issues to help ensure that products are correctly classified at the appropriate 8-digit tariff line. ITC also provides USTR with preliminary import data for the previous 3 years. During the second stage of full review of product petitions, USTR officially requests ITC advice on the list of products accepted for review. ITC generally has about 3 months to hold public hearings, complete its analysis, and report back to USTR by November, according to an ITC official. ITC reports to USTR on GSP products have a standard digest of information for each product, including (1) product description, (2) U.S. market profile, (3) imports from GSP countries and share of U.S. consumption, (4) competitiveness profiles of GSP suppliers, (5) summaries of statements submitted by interested parties in support of or opposition to the petition, and (6) summary of probable economic effects. The sixth information block, providing ITC bottom-line advice on economic effect, is classified by USTR and is not made public; it is deleted from the public version of the ITC report. In it, ITC gives its judgment on (1) the effect on U.S. imports, including the extent to which GSP imports will likely substitute for other non-GSP countries’ imports or displace U.S. products; (2) the probable effect on U.S. industry; and (3) the probable effect on U.S. consumers. Most of the current and former GSP Subcommittee members we spoke to felt that the ITC economic impact advice was very valuable to the decision-making process. Although the advice was clearly considered to be only one factor in deciding a petition, several former subcommittee members said that it was valued as an impartial benchmark against which other more partisan analyses of economic impact could be assessed. An ITC official stated that the ITC standards for economic analysis under GSP are as stringent as for other tariff reduction advice, although ITC operates under a very short time frame in the GSP review cycle. While GSP law gives ITC 6 months to render its advice, in practice ITC does so within 90 days. ITC officials, GSP Subcommittee members, and former GSP directors confirmed that there is often conflicting advice coming from ITC and the GSP Subcommittee agencies. An ITC official said that this reflects the constitutent pressures on the agencies and that each agency—Agriculture, Commerce, etc.—protects its constituents. This is part of the balancing act of the GSP process. Some agency officials, however, felt that the discrepancy between ITC and agency advice was due to the greater depth and breadth of agency expertise in individual commodities. ITC officials indicated that one reason for the divergence in analyses was that ITC looked at the potential impact of GSP imports on the overall U.S. industry. For instance, in agricultural products ITC did not consider the impact on any agricultural price support system. USDA, however, is concerned about this impact. An ITC official noted that USDA also does not want to give any competitive advantage to a foreign country. Even if the overall industry is not harmed, a particular company or region may be, and therefore USDA will oppose almost all petitions to grant GSP product status. Another ITC official said that when a conflict in analysis occurs, ITC has no vote, and the GSP agencies generally defer to the lead agency for that petition. Domestic producers expressed concern that ITC used outdated information in GSP investigations. Because ITC has used full-year data, there was a 10-month gap for current-year data when it gave USTR its report in November. By the time the petition was decided some 4 or 5 months later, another full year of data had become available, sometimes changing the picture significantly. Some U.S. industry representatives felt that this time lag undercut the usefulness of ITC advice. ITC has recently addressed this concern. It changed its practice of providing only full-year data in its GSP report for the 1993 annual review. It also included trade data for the first 9 months of the year. However, ITC and other GSP agency officials said that there will always be a time lag, due to the nature of the GSP review cycle. ITC officials also stated that trends in data are more important than monthly levels. They noted that TPSC can request updated data at any time and that industry sources are generally efficient in providing such updated data to USTR. The GSP agency officials reiterated that the ITC advice, although important, is only one factor in the decision-making process. Classification of the ITC economic impact assessment as confidential was also cited as a problem. This information is classified at USTR’s direction. We found that it was generally thought that ITC’s GSP advice was classified in order to preclude disclosure of business-confidential information. Several domestic industry representatives and a trade attorney disagreed with such a policy. They said that revealing the bottom-line conclusion—whether or not a product was import sensitive under GSP—would not threaten business-proprietary information such as profit margins or productivity of industry members: these need not be disclosed. They said this policy undercuts the transparency of the program. Several GSP Subcommittee members said that public disclosure of this information would jeopardize the validity of ITC investigations. They said that companies provide ITC with sensitive business information critical to the ITC analysis only because the companies know that it will be kept strictly confidential. Without this assurance, the quality and accuracy of future information disclosures would be undermined. ITC and GSP officials subsequently told us that concern for business-proprietary information was not the reason USTR classified the ITC economic impact advice as confidential. GSP officials said that there were several reasons for this policy. They said that the ITC probable economic effect advice under GSP is given pursuant to the same statutory basis as for trade negotiations. Confidentiality is necessary for such negotiations and historically has also been extended to GSP advice. The officials said another reason is that releasing ITC’s advice could unduly highlight this advice as being more significant than it is in the GSP review process. ITC advice has been valued for its impartiality but has been treated as only one factor in the GSP Subcommittee’s review. A final reason given is concern that revealing ITC’s advice could have a chilling effect on the impartiality of the ITC analysis, which is now shielded from outside pressures. The GSP Program has a generally well-structured administrative process for consideration of product petitions, including a highly transparent procedure for accepting public comments from all interested parties and holding public hearings on accepted petitions. However, this transparency largely stops once the interagency decision-making process begins. Decision-making criteria are not defined in the statute, and judgments are made on a case-by-case basis for each product and BDC, based on informal guidelines the GSP Subcommittee has developed. Although USTR is obligated to respond to written requests by petitioners to explain petition decisions, many parties were apparently unaware of this right. The waiver of the 3-year rule during the 1991 Central and East European special review undermined the credibility of the program with the affected domestic industries. They strongly supported adding the 3-year rule, and a provision disallowing waivers, to the GSP law during program reauthorization. We found merit in USTR’s position that the current regulations allow USTR to waive the 3-year rule or to self-initiate cases, which can have the same effect as a waiver. This situation presents a policy dilemma in which a choice must be made between fairness to the domestic producers and the administration’s desire to preserve this option. The GSP Subcommittee’s acceptance of petitions that do not contain information required in the regulations can place U.S. producers at a disadvantage because in many instances there are few independent sources of information on the BDC petitioner or other potential BDC suppliers. Domestic producers believe that acceptance of petitions that did not fully meet all the regulatory information requirements effectively shifted the burden of proof from the petitioner to those opposing the petition. In order to provide greater transparency to the GSP decision-making process and the GSP petition process, we recommend that the U.S. Trade Representative (1)make public the guidelines the GSP Subcommittee uses in analyzing product petitions, with the stipulation that the guidelines provide a framework for, but do not limit the extent of, the Subcommittee’s analysis; (2)indicate clearly in Federal Register notices of final decisions on GSP petitions that petitioners can write to request a written explanation of any decision; and (3)modify GSP regulations to specify a mandatory core of information required for acceptance of product petitions. If Congress considers whether or not to incorporate the 3-year rule, and a provision disallowing its waiver, in the GSP statute, it should recognize that the TPSC regulatory authority to self-initiate cases can have the same effect. Congress may wish to consider stipulating whether or not self-initiation of cases should be allowed where it would have the effect of waiving the 3-year rule. USTR did not agree with our recommendation that it make public the guidelines the GSP Subcommittee uses in analyzing product petitions. It agreed to indicate clearly in the Federal Register notices of final decisions on GSP petitions that petitioners can write to request a written explanation of any decision. Finally, in response to our draft recommendation that USTR accept only product petitions that include all required information, USTR responded that it was proposing to modify GSP regulations to specify a mandatory core of information that all petitions must contain to be accepted for review. We believe that this proposal, together with certain other proposals that enhance transparency of program decisions, could potentially address the concerns underlying our initial recommendation. As a result, we have revised our recommendation to support this course of action. USTR said that the administration’s GSP reauthorization proposal would clarify the type of information required in product petitions and would affirmatively require TPSC to consider import and production data from all principal beneficiaries in accepting petitions. However, USTR disagreed with our recommendation that it make public the guidelines used in analyzing product petitions. Instead, USTR reiterated its view that the indexes currently listed in the GSP regulations are all potentially relevant to determining import sensitivity. It maintained that no one group of indexes or “guidelines” would be applicable or appropriate in every case; thus, such a list of guidelines, unless it were quite broad and long, could be misleading. USTR said that the personal communication that occurs between the GSP Subcommittee, petitioners, and repondents is the best way in which such interested parties can obtain a better understanding of the various factors considered material in their case. We continue to believe that greater public knowledge and understanding of the guidelines used by the GSP Subcommittee in analyzing product petitions would contribute to better prepared and potentially more realistic petitions. It would also assist domestic producers in more effectively preparing evidence to oppose petitions. The administration’s response to our recommendation focuses to a greater degree on the information provided by petitioners. Our focus was on greater explication of the analytical framework used by the GSP Subcommittee, e.g., that its evaluation of a product is based on such factors as (a) the import-to-consumption ratio and (b) the extent to which GSP duty-free imports of a product could be expected to displace imports from non-GSP countries rather than U.S. production. These are factors that guide analysis; they are not information provided by petitioners. We believe that greater understanding and transparency of the analysis used in the decision-making process will be even more important in the future if the administration’s proposal to review product-addition petitions only every 3 years is implemented. In response to the administration’s concern, we modified our draft recommendation to clearly indicate that any discussion of factors used in the guidelines should not be considered as limiting the analysis. In its GSP renewal proposal, the administration has proposed specifying a mandatory core of information that all petitions must contain in order to be accepted for review. In addition, it has proposed affirmatively requiring TPSC to accept product-addition petitions only when there is “substantial information” demonstrating compliance with statutory criteria for product eligibility (whether provided by the petition or by TPSC agencies). TPSC would be required to provide this information, after its decision, upon request to any interested party. We believe that this proposal could potentially address the concerns underlying our draft recommendation by clarifying the information that is actually required and by requiring TPSC to be sure there is substantial information demonstrating product eligibility. Further, by subsequently providing this information to interested parties, potentially including agency-held information that previously would not have been released, this provision could increase program transparency. It may also alleviate domestic producers’ concerns that the burden of proof disproportionately falls upon them when incomplete petitions are accepted. We have, therefore, revised our recommendation to support this course of action. The Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 reauthorized the GSP Program but added stricter eligibility criteria for BDCs. These criteria stipulated that a BDC provide (1) adequate and effective protection of IPR and (2) internationally recognized worker rights. These so-called “country practice” criteria have remained very contentious. Developing countries have resented what they see as inappropriate conditions (“conditionality”) attached to a trade assistance program that had traditionally required no reciprocal action by BDCs. Advocates of these provisions, in turn, have maintained that the GSP Program’s objective of aiding economic development will not be adequately achieved without parallel development of adequate IPR and worker rights standards. We also found concern about how these country practice provisions have been implemented. In our estimation, adding country practice cases onto the existing GSP annual review process for product cases has not worked well because these two types of cases are fundamentally different. Treating them the same has led to administrative problems in the rigid annual review cycle. There have also been concerns about the program’s policies for accepting country practice petitions for review. Much of the controversy over the way in which country practice provisions have been administered is rooted in the differing expectations held by GSP officials, IPR advocates, and worker rights advocates. GSP Subcommittee members generally believe that the country practice provisions have been pursued and have provided leverage to get BDCs to initiate changes, to the best degree possible, given other trade and foreign policy concerns. However, IPR and worker rights advocates said they want country practice cases more vigorously pursued and sanctions more frequently exercised. Worker rights advocates are particularly concerned, especially since IPR advocates can pursue more powerful provisions in U.S. trade law. The GSP worker rights provision, however, is the linchpin for most worker rights provisions in other U.S. trade laws. These laws depend on GSP sanctions to trigger their own actions. IPR and worker rights advocates and GSP officials recommended changes to GSP administrative processes as part of the GSP Program’s reauthorization. All recommended disengaging country practice cases from the annual review process used for product petition cases. IPR and worker rights advocates also proposed strengthening their respective provisions. However, many U.S. government officials and trade experts indicated that the GSP Program can provide only a modest degree of leverage in encouraging BDC governments to change their practices. Further, the prospect during GSP renewal of additional country practice provisions being proposed, particularly for environmental protection purposes where there are no international standards, was generally held to be a mistake by those we interviewed who currently participate in the GSP Program. It was frequently pointed out that adding new provisions would reduce the leverage of existing provisions and put too high a price on GSP benefits for many BDCs. In addition, the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round of GATT and its resulting tariff reductions would, if enacted, reduce the value of the tariff elimination provided by GSP. This tariff elimination would decrease GSP leverage, making it that much more difficult to add new requirements to country practice provisions. The GSP statute provides for a number of country practice provisions, which address issues such as market access, expropriation, and international terrorism, as well as IPR and worker rights. We have focused on the latter two provisions, which were the most contentious and the subject of the greatest number of petitions. Of the 113 country practice petitions filed in the annual reviews from 1985 through 1993, all but 14 (12 percent) were IPR or worker rights petitions. Of these cases, 11 were conducted in the General Review completed in 1987, all of which were worker rights cases. The IPR provision in the GSP statute, which lists factors determinative of whether to designate a country as a BDC, states that the President “shall take into account . . . the extent to which such country is providing adequate and effective means under its laws for foreign nationals to secure, to exercise, and to enforce exclusive rights in intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights.” This IPR provision envisions that a BDC provides an adequate IPR regime and enforces it, but leaves application of the provision to the President’s discretion. The GSP statute does not define what constitutes “adequate and effective” IPR protection. The GSP Director said that USTR has interpreted this provision based on a well-developed intellectual property policy that relies on U.S. as well as international standards. He said USTR uses as guidelines the international standards that have already been set in international agreements on IPR and by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which is a part of the U.N. structure. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement reached in the Uruguay Round of the GATT has now set a single international standard that the United States accepts as a minimum IPR standard, but not in all cases as an adequate standard. Application of the IPR provision in the GSP Program is also based on the level of development of a BDC. While less developed BDCs may be given more leeway on the minimum standard, the more advanced BDCs may be expected to go beyond these minimum international standards to meet the higher U.S. standard. There is also an IPR provision that provides that BDCs are ineligible for GSP designation under certain circumstances if such country “has nationalized, expropriated, or otherwise seized ownership or control of property, including patents, trademarks, or copyrights owned by a United States citizen or by a corporation, partnership, or association which is 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens,” or has taken certain steps that would have this effect. The worker rights provision in the GSP statute states that the President, in determining whether a developing country should benefit from GSP, “shall take into account . . . whether or not such country has taken or is taking steps to afford workers in that country (including any designated zone in that country) internationally recognized worker rights.” The statute defines internationally recognized worker rights as including (A) the right of association; (B) the right to organize and bargain collectively; (C) a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor; (D) a minimum age for the employment of children; and (E) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health. The worker rights criterion is one of “taking steps” to meet international standards, rather than being in full compliance with those standards. The international standards have been set by the International Labor Organization (ILO), which is part of the U.N. structure. Again, the President has great discretion in the application of the provision. The country practice provisions added to the GSP Program during program reauthorization in 1984 have been very contentious. The U.S. GSP Program is the only one to have such added “conditionalities”; developing countries have strongly opposed these provisions and regard them as penalties. The U.S. and foreign officials, trade experts, business representatives, trade association representatives, and academics we interviewed were divided on the inclusion of country practice provisions in the GSP Program; there were strong advocates of both points of view. In addition, we found more resistance to the worker rights provision than to the IPR provision’s being included in GSP. An UNCTAD official said that the application of country practice provisions was a misuse of reciprocity and pointed out that the United States was the only GSP donor with such conditionalities. He feared that the United States would be led to continue to add such provisions, because they are not technically illegal with respect to GATT. Another UNCTAD official noted that, by their nature, country practice provisions are too volatile because of the political nature of such leverage. He felt that such problems could better be handled through other U.S. laws, such as Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act (see p. 113). In September 1992, 13 BDCs sent a joint letter to USTR conveying their views on the importance of renewing the GSP Program. Regarding country practice issues, they noted that they have a strong commitment to the reform of their economies into strong market economies and to participation in the multilateral trade negotiations to address outstanding issues. They saw country practice conditions in GSP as “(a) edundant because the issues they address are being dealt with at the Uruguay Round; and (b) ounter-productive because most developing countries are resolving these matters on their own initiative despite domestic opposition. Our Governments are in need of incentives, not penalties.” U.S. embassy officials in the six case study countries we visited had conflicting views on the worker rights and IPR provisions in the GSP legislation. Some felt that such conditionalities should not be attached to a trade measure or that better means exist to pressure BDCs to improve IPR and worker rights practices (e.g., treaty negotiations or Special 301 provisions (see p. 111)). Also, these officials generally agreed that the program should not hold BDCs to a U.S. standard. However, at the same time, many of these embassy officials also acknowledged that GSP’s country practice provisions had helped to raise the level of consciousness in their host countries about the importance of IPR and worker rights and had oftentimes resulted in some degree of improvements. There was a general feeling among many trade experts we interviewed, including some U.S. government officials, that the GSP country practice petitions went against the spirit of GATT, at a minimum, and were possibly in conflict with GATT. Others felt that while IPR and worker rights were important issues, they should be handled in another forum, not in GSP, which they felt should remain a trade assistance program as originally intended. Many pointed to the TRIPs negotiations in the Uruguay Round as negating the need for an IPR provision under GSP. To a significant degree, we also found a greater acceptance of IPR as a trade issue, in contrast to worker rights, which was not generally accepted as a trade issue by those we interviewed. Many of the officials and trade experts we talked to particularly questioned including the worker rights provision in the GSP Program. One trade expert commented that she had never understood how suspending GSP would help workers in that BDC. An academic expert on GSP said that BDCs see U.S. country practice provisions as interference in their internal affairs, with the U.S. dictating appropriate domestic policies. One reason why IPR has been accorded greater acceptance in trade policy circles than worker rights was offered by the GSP Director. He noted that trade policy historically is an arm of commercial policy. He pointed out that IPR advocates can point directly to dollars lost from piracy abroad, but that worker rights advocates have a more difficult time showing direct damage to U.S. commercial and trade interests from abuses of foreign workers’ rights. In addition, many U.S. commercial interests benefit from GSP duty-free benefits. Thus, he said it appears to many that the United States is being asked to take economic action that might harm its commercial/trade interests, as well as its bilateral political relationship, for benefits that are unclear at best. He noted that worker rights groups argue that the greater protection of worker rights abroad helps protect U.S. jobs, but said that this connection was again hard to demonstrate. It may be true that U.S. workers are being undercut by lower wages in developing countries, but it seemed clear that that would remain the case, by virtue of their lower level of development, even if bargaining rights, for example, were improved. This does not necessarily imply that it is not in the U.S. interest to promote those rights, only that a direct commercial benefit is difficult to demonstrate. IPR advocates responded to UNCTAD and BDC charges that the GSP IPR provision is a conditionality that is not trade related, stressing that IPR is a trade issue. They said that a fundamental problem they face in the developing world is that many BDCs do not accept that intellectual property is really property. The same government that would never consider expropriating a shoe factory will, however, allow pirating of computer software, videos, or pharmaceuticals. Intellectual property industries are very dependent on copyright, patent, or trademark protection. Their industries are based on innovation and have in common that all research and development costs are incurred up front, before a product is placed on the market, and the ensuing products can easily, quickly, and cheaply be copied or stolen by pirates. For example, the high level of research and development cost and risk faced by the pharmaceutical industry was highlighted in a February 1993 Office of Technology Assessment report, Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks and Rewards. This study found that the average cost to develop a new drug in the 1980s was roughly $194 million after taxes, in 1990 dollars. It also found that the research and development process took 12 years on average. Representatives of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, Motion Picture Association of America, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America all said that another critical factor is that respect for innovation and intellectual property is a key ingredient for development, the objective of the GSP Program. Economies that do not respect and protect IPR inhibit the development of domestic intellectual property industries or investment by foreign intellectual property industries. The PRMA representative gave the example of India, which he stated officially sanctions pharmaceutical piracy. He believed that lack of IPR protection was one reason that India had fallen behind other Asian countries. A 1990 study conducted for PRMA, “Benefits and Costs of Intellectual Property Protection in Developing Countries,” National Economic Research Associates, Inc., found a causal linkage between the presence of efficient property rights, including intellectual property rights, and economic modernization. IIPA, in turn, pointed out that intellectual property industries are large export earners for the United States, with over $36 billion in foreign sales in 1991. IIPA has estimated U.S. trade losses due to piracy of copyrighted works in 1992 at around $15 billion to $17 billion. This figure does not include losses to patent industries, including pharmaceuticals and high-technology firms, which could be substantial. Worker rights advocates also contended that worker rights are a trade issue. They believe that worker rights provisions are critical to the GSP Program in order to assure that economic development and increased exports do not come at the expense of abused workers. An AFL-CIO official said that the worker rights provision is needed because producers of goods imported into the United States under preferential terms should not enjoy benefits at the expense of exploited workers. A representative of the International Labor Rights Education and Research Fund (ILRERF) explained that its goal is to inject into U.S. trade policy a means to encourage broad-based development worldwide. Free trade is healthy only if it is not based on competition that degrades workers in the countries trying to obtain trade benefits. He said that a mechanism is needed to distribute the benefits of trade, which in this case means improved circumstances for workers through worker rights and good working conditions. The ILRERF official added that poor labor conditions or artificially low wages overseas also encourage U.S. companies to relocate to cut production costs, putting pressure on U.S. workers. He said that companies can even obtain negotiated concessions from U.S. workers simply by threatening to relocate to a foreign country. The position that country practice issues should be handled in multilateral forums has not succeeded in the case of worker rights. The U.S. government tried to get GATT members to consider worker rights issues under the Uruguay Round and could not generate any support, according to a U.S. government official. This official complained that even the U.S. proposal for a GATT study group was turned down. Advocates of labor issues are left with ILO as their only international forum. However, ILO conventions on international labor standards are voluntary and have no sanctions. The official said that BDCs like to point out that the United States has signed few ILO conventions. He said that ILO has issued over 170 binding labor conventions and that the United States has signed only 11 of them. However, he said that the reason for this situation was not any problem with the standards, but because labor issues in the United States fall largely under the authority of individual states. Country practice petitions are administered together with product petitions in the GSP Program’s annual review process. Based on our review of cases in the 1990 and 1991 annual reviews and the views of a variety of interested parties—including U.S. officials, IPR and worker rights advocates, and trade experts—this combined procedure does not appear to have been successful. Country practice cases are fundamentally different from product cases, and a number of administrative problems have resulted from trying to handle these cases simultaneously within the same procedural framework. When the country practice provisions relating to IPR and worker rights were added to the GSP statute in the 1984 renewal act, they were simply appended to the existing annual review process for product petitions (discussed in ch. 4). The same “annual review cycle” framework and interagency decision-making process has been used by the GSP Subcommittee in administering these petitions. The same filing and decision-making time frames have also been used. When cases could not be resolved in the 1-year cycle, the subcommittee simply “pended,” or held over, cases to the next review cycle, sometimes for 2 or 3 years. There were important administrative differences, however, between the country practice cases and product cases we reviewed. The most important difference was that resolution of a product case was an internal U.S. government decision. Whether a product received GSP duty-free benefits was based upon the information provided to the GSP Subcommittee and its recommendation on import sensitivity or competitiveness of the product (which must subsequently be ratified by TPSC, TPRG, and the President). Further, the impact of the petition was generally limited: whether BDCs would be able to ship frozen peas or alarm clocks duty free or not was usually of immediate concern only to those domestic and foreign industries. Country practice cases were fundamentally different in that they involved changes in the internal practices of another sovereign nation and triggered government-to-government negotiations or representations. While the GSP Subcommittee made its ultimate recommendation based on the information it received, the bilateral negotiations or representations that had been initiated by the filing of the petition were the real focus of the cases. Our review of cases and interviews with GSP officials indicated that in IPR cases, USTR’s IPR office generally takes the lead. The IPR negotiator works together with the State Department country desk officer and embassy officials in the BDC to pursue resolution of the petition issue. As needed, they get technical assistance from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Often, they negotiate directly with counterparts in the BDC government and work together to develop acceptable standards in a new copyright or patent law. The U.S. IPR advocacy group will likely be closely involved in this process. USTR’s IPR negotiators will work with the GSP Subcommittee on how to use the GSP process and what options are available to them. In worker rights cases, until recently USTR has had no real role in resolving the issue giving rise to the petition. The main U.S. government actors have been (1) the State Department, through its embassy in-country, its country desk officer, and its Labor Advisory Office; and (2) the Labor Department’s International Labor Affairs Bureau. High-level representations are made by the U.S. Ambassador and senior government officials to counterparts in the country and to the BDC’s Ambassador in Washington. Worker rights advocacy groups were not generally involved in these representations. The worker rights review, unlike the IPR review, would not be limited to the petition issue only, but would be enlarged to scrutinize the overall labor regime of the BDC in light of the five internationally recognized worker rights criteria stated in the GSP law (see pp. 99-100). According to the GSP Director, the process used for worker rights cases has changed over the past year, and these cases have a higher priority now. As documented in our review of selected cases in the 1990 and 1991 annual reviews, the GSP Subcommittee did not previously get involved in working to resolve the substance of country practice cases. The Director said that this situation has changed, and the GSP Subcommittee is now taking the lead on worker rights cases due to the greater expertise developed over the years and the precedents set by cases reviewed to date. The subcommittee now also has greater interaction with worker rights advocates on cases. The particular problems that have resulted from administering country practice cases in a review process designed for product petition cases include (1) the rigidity of the annual review cycle and (2) the program’s policies for accepting petitions for review. The June 1 deadline for submission of all GSP petitions for consideration during the annual review cycle is considered by IPR and worker rights groups as too rigid for country practice cases. Since these cases involve international standards of behavior, rather than trade flows, events can precipitate crises at any time during the year. For this reason, IPR and worker rights groups believed that they should be able to file petitions at any time during the year when a crisis occurs and receive expedited review. According to worker rights groups, a particularly harsh, but telling, example of such a crisis for worker rights involved the case of Sudan. On June 30, 1989, a coup d’état overthrew the Sudanese government, and the new government immediately issued a decree to abolish labor unions and forbid strikes. Widespread cases of detention and abuse of trade unionists were reported. However, due to the GSP rules, Africa Watch and the AFL-CIO were not able to file a petition until 11 months later, on June 1, 1990. While Sudan was ultimately suspended from the GSP Program, the decision was not handed down until May 1991, at the conclusion of the 1990 annual review cycle. Sudan, therefore, continued to receive GSP benefits for almost 2 years after the coup. IPR groups concurred on the need for out-of-cycle filing when a crisis occurs. For instance, situations can arise when a major piracy production and export center is established in a BDC, flooding a region with pirated videos. In such situations, IIPA members want to have a means of quick response before too much damage is done in the marketplace. Waiting on the annual review cycle makes this quick response impossible as far as using GSP leverage. Another problem with the rigid annual review cycle concerns the need to continually hold over country practice cases to the next review cycle. Because country practice cases involve changes in the internal practices of another sovereign nation, triggering government-to-government negotiations or representations and usually requiring passage of national legislation, they generally take a long time to resolve. Out of 53 country practice cases accepted for full review before the 1993 annual review, 23 were held over to at least one subsequent annual review. The 41 cases that were completed by the start of the 1993 annual review took an average of 1.3 years to resolve. Of the 24 country practice cases reviewed in the 1993 annual review, 12 have been held over from previous years. The GSP Subcommittee has recently begun to address some of these concerns. For instance, although it has not accepted petitions out of cycle during the review year, the subcommittee did accept an IPR petition on Cyprus for expedited review in the 1993 annual review. IIPA filed the petition on June 1, 1993, the normal filing date, with the request that the review and actions to be taken be expedited. The review concluded that Cyprus’ GSP benefits should be suspended due to failure to adequately protect IPR. However, the suspension was deferred due to Cyprus’ intent to implement a new and greatly improved copyright law on January 1, 1994, according to USTR. A second general administrative issue concerns the lack of standards in the GSP law or regulations for accepting country practice petitions for review. To deal with this problem, the GSP Subcommittee has adopted internal policy guidelines for how it will consider petition requests. However, cases are complex and the outcome of policies may not always be clear or consistent. The GSP Director acknowledged that this situation has sometimes created confusion among GSP agencies and outside groups. Advocacy groups said that acceptance standards can be subjective and highly political. In particular, worker rights groups said that all petitions that are not legally “frivolous” should be accepted for review. They also said that they especially do not agree with two of the policies used in the decision whether to accept worker rights petitions for review: (1) the classification of a petitioned offense as a human rights rather than a worker rights problem and, therefore, outside the purview of the GSP Program; and (2) the “new information” standard used to deny consideration of petitions in subsequent years on a petition that has been denied, unless substantially new information is brought. In the annual reviews from 1985 through 1993, 113 country practice cases were filed, as shown in table 5.1. The GSP Subcommittee accepted 65 (58 percent) of these cases for full review, including 12 IPR, 46 worker rights, 3 expropriation, and 4 reinstatement petitions. Of the 61 annual review cases accepted for review that were filed to remove benefits and the 11 general review cases, 11 (15 percent) resulted in the BDC’s GSP benefits being suspended or removed. Four of these 11 BDCs were later reinstated; the 4 granted reinstatement petitions were filed by 3 BDCs that had been suspended for worker rights violations and 1 BDC for expropriation violations. IPR advocates, who filed relatively few cases under GSP, generally felt that the GSP Program had played a beneficial role in securing improved IPR protection in GSP beneficiary countries. A number of BDCs have improved their IPR laws as a result of GSP petitions. IPR advocates were less concerned about acceptance of petitions and more concerned about more “vigorous” use of the IPR provision, resulting in more BDCs being suspended for IPR violations. Worker rights advocates were far more concerned about acceptance of worker rights petitions and were generally very disappointed with the implementation of the provision under the GSP Program. Although they acknowledged that the provision had led to progress in a number of BDCs, it was apparent that the results had not met their expectations. Their main area of concern was with the standards for acceptance of petitions for review. They said that the GSP Subcommittee needed to articulate clear and specific standards for acceptance or rejection of petitions for full review. They said that all worker rights petitions should be accepted, as long as they were not legally frivolous. In 1990, 23 labor and human rights groups filed suit against the administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The parties to the lawsuit included almost every group that had filed a worker rights petition under the GSP Program. They charged that the administration had failed to enforce the worker rights provision. They lost their case in district court and their appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. However, the lawsuits were dismissed on the technical ground that the parties lacked standing to bring the lawsuits or that the particular court lacked jurisdiction to consider the lawsuit; the substance of the lawsuits was never addressed. One of the primary concerns labor groups have had about acceptance of petitions has been based on the GSP Program’s policy of distinguishing between human rights and worker rights violations. For instance, the murder of a trade union leader is classified as a human rights violation and is not accepted as the basis of a worker rights petition. Labor groups disagreed with this policy, stating that in most cases it is very clear that the reason a labor leader has been murdered was due to worker rights advocacy. GSP officials pointed out that in developing countries that have serious human rights problems, it is usually not possible to clearly establish the motivating cause for the violation. The GSP Director said that the policy line between human rights and worker rights has been a difficult one in some cases. Generally, the GSP Subcommittee looked for firm evidence that abuses against individuals were in some way related to their work as labor or union activists. This proves difficult in cases of widespread civil unrest or civil war. Moreover, it is difficult in such instances, where the perpetrating party is unclear, and where the government of the country may lack effective legal control over events, to determine the extent to which the government could take or was taking effective steps to prevent such abuses. However, he cited the recent case with Malawi, where a labor leader was imprisoned by the government for sedition, in which the GSP Program did have the clear evidence it needed. The GSP Subcommittee pursued the issue with the Malawi government, and the labor leader was finally released. Another policy that is controversial is the “new information” standard in the GSP regulations. This regulation states that in order to re-petition on a worker rights case that has been dismissed (whether not accepted for full review or reviewed and found insufficient to establish a GSP violation), substantial new information must be brought. The reasons for the regulation are similar to the reasons behind the 3-year rule for product addition petitions: to prevent repeated petitioning on the same issue that would harass the petitioned party and unduly burden the GSP review process. Country practice petitions can be refiled every year; there can be no 3-year rule because the IPR and worker rights practices of a BDC can change at any time. However, labor groups said that the new information standard undermines their effective use of the worker rights provision. If a BDC is found to be taking steps toward, but is not in compliance with, worker rights standards, this regulatory standard makes it difficult to revisit the situation when labor groups feel progress on those issues stopped as soon as the GSP pressure ended. Worker rights advocates said that the petition filed against Malaysia in 1988 is a good example of this problem with the new information standard. After the petition, which stated that Malaysia was suppressing unions in its electronics sector, was accepted for review, the Malaysian government announced an end to the ban on electronics unions. Later, a Malaysian government official clarified the announcement to indicate that only in-house unions would be permitted, even though unions in Malaysia are generally organized at the national level. The United States found Malaysia to be taking steps to improve its labor regime, and the case was concluded at the end of the review cycle in spring 1989. However, the U.S. Trade Representative noted in her April 1989 letter to the Malaysian Prime Minister informing him of this decision that much progress was needed. She also cited the fact that the government did not allow full freedom for workers to associate and form labor unions of their own choosing in certain export industries such as the electronics industry. Notwithstanding this admonition, subsequent petitions filed in 1990 and 1991 were rejected for review because of determinations that they failed to provide new information. During our visit to Kuala Lumpur in November 1992, the embassy official responsible for labor issues said that the embassy’s analysis had shown that the 1990 and 1991 petitions did not contain new information. He also confirmed that the embassy did not conduct any follow-up work to determine whether the Malaysian government had taken any corrective actions in the areas identified by the GSP Subcommittee. The AFL-CIO filed another petition on this issue in June 1993. The decision on whether to accept the petition for review was deferred until January 1994. USTR stated that additional time was needed to determine if a second review was warranted, or if worker rights progress had continued over the past several years. The GSP Director said that there had been a change in recent months to interpret the new information regulation more broadly. He said that the GSP Subcommittee has been more willing to accept petitions a second time. For example, the worker rights petition filed against the Dominican Republic in June 1989 resulted in a finding in April 1991 that the Dominican government was taking steps to improve worker rights by drafting a new labor law. Another petition was filed in June 1991, but was rejected because the Dominican government was still in the process of enacting the new labor law. However, 2 years later, in June 1993, a further petition was filed stating that the new law was not being adequately enforced. The GSP Director said that the GSP Subcommittee considered the new information that the Dominican Republic was not enforcing its new labor law and accepted the case for review. He also noted that GSP summary reports at the conclusion of reviews are now more explicit on worker rights cases. If the BDC is taking steps, the GSP Subcommittee notes the action and then goes on to record what additional steps the subcommittee expects. He said that this expectation is the “hook” for a new petition. There is an important difference in perspectives among GSP Subcommittee officials, IPR advocates, and worker rights advocates on the degree to which GSP leverage should be pursued in investigations and negotiations with BDC governments and, ultimately, used in actual sanctions. GSP officials generally said they feel that the country practice provisions have been used as much as possible to encourage improved BDC practices, given other foreign policy and trade concerns. In contrast, IPR and worker rights advocates generally said they want to see more cases accepted for review and more BDCs sanctioned through suspension from the GSP Program. However, the fact that worker rights advocates have reacted more strongly, to the point of filing suit against the administration, also reflects the relative standing of IPR and worker rights provisions in U.S. trade law. While IPR advocates have other, more powerful, trade law options available to them, worker rights provisions in other trade laws are linked to the exercise of GSP sanctions. Thus GSP sanctions are critical to worker rights advocates’ pursuit of other legal avenues. The GSP Program Director said that the country practice reviews have been worthwhile and have produced substantive results in many BDCs. Other GSP Subcommittee officials concurred, saying that the country practice provisions of the GSP Program have resulted in important improvements in some BDCs’ practices. In IPR cases, new copyright laws were passed in a number of countries, including Singapore, Indonesia, the Dominican Republic, and Malta. GSP leverage was also effectively used when Mexico enacted major IPR improvements in order to receive about $2 billion in competitive need limit waivers in June 1991. More recently, progress has been made in the cable signal piracy petitions filed by MPAA against the Dominican Republic and Honduras, although these cases remain incomplete. A third case filed against Guatemala was withdrawn in summer 1994 after an agreement was reached. In worker rights cases, the Central African Republic, Paraguay, and Chile were pointed out as BDCs that were suspended from GSP and later improved their practices and were reinstated. More recently, in December 1993, two new worker rights cases filed against Costa Rica and Paraguay were settled, and the AFL-CIO withdrew its petitions after new legislation was enacted. The GSP Director said that progress was also being made in El Salvador and Indonesia. Just as importantly, GSP officials said that these provisions have resulted in raising the consciousness of BDC governments on the importance of IPR and worker rights protections and are having a longer term impact as BDC development levels increase. Generally speaking, according to government officials, the approach they take in administering country practice provisions is that of using the GSP provisions to encourage improved IPR and worker rights practices by BDCs. While they are willing to use the leverage provided by GSP benefits to push hard for improvements, they do not want to have to actually exercise GSP sanctions to punish BDCs. Once sanctions are imposed, leverage is lost in encouraging future improvements in any of the country practice provisions. And, just as important for the administration, bilateral trade and foreign relations are damaged. It is for this reason, we found, that country practice cases are usually held over until a resolution can be worked out. Government officials stressed that they have to take a broad view of bilateral relations to balance competing interests. They said that they cannot afford to take a narrowly focused position, as many advocacy groups do, that country practice petitions should be pursued at all costs, no matter what the impact will be on the commercial and bilateral relationship with a BDC. A myriad of equally important objectives may be held in the balance at any given time. A notable example of such inherent constraints was with the 1988 worker rights petition against Syria, which was held over for 3 additional years while the Middle East hostage situation was going on. Only when that extremely sensitive situation was resolved was Syria suspended from the GSP Program in the summer of 1992. The GSP Program is only one of three trade law measures under which IPR issues can be pursued with U.S. trading partners, and the least forceful. The “big gun” is Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, followed by the Special 301 provision, and finally the GSP Program. The most egregious IPR cases have been pursued through these first two provisions, rather than through GSP. GSP’s main value for IPR advocates is as a first level of response, leaving negotiating room to increase the pressures with the threat or use of Section 301 and/or Special 301. Several IPR representatives told us that they preferred to use GSP when possible because it caused the least damage to bilateral trade relations. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, provides a domestic procedure under which affected enterprises or individuals may petition the U.S. Trade Representative to initiate actions to enforce U.S. rights under trade agreements, or to respond to unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory foreign government practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. One of Section 301’s main uses has been to obtain more effective protection worldwide for U.S. intellectual property. Actions taken may include (1) suspension of bilateral trade agreement concessions; (2) imposition of duties, fees, or other import restrictions on products and services; and (3) entry into agreements with the subject country to eliminate the offending practice or to provide compensatory benefits for the United States. Actions may be instituted against any goods or economic sectors, without regard to whether the goods or economic sectors were the subject of the investigation. Special 301 focuses exclusively on IPR issues, unlike Section 301 cases. Here, Congress has expressed its clear intent that intellectual property issues warrant unique coverage. Special 301 requires USTR to identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights or that deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons relying on intellectual property protection. Special 301 can be used to pressure foreign countries to improve their IPR regimes and can ultimately be used to trigger mandatory expedited Section 301 investigations. The conclusion of the Uruguay Round of GATT, which, if enacted, would bring IPR under the international trading system for the first time, would also have ramifications for the GSP Program. Although the full implications are still being sorted out, it is believed that the GSP IPR provision may now become more important to advocacy groups. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights reached in the GATT negotiations would establish improved standards for the protection of a full range of IPR and the enforcement of those standards both internally and at the border. The intellectual property rights covered by the agreement are copyrights, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, trade secrets, integrated circuits (semiconductor chips), and geographical indications. The TRIPs text is covered by the Uruguay Round Dispute Settlement Understanding, thus ensuring application of the improved dispute settlement procedures, including the possibility of imposing trade sanctions (such as increasing tariffs) if another GATT member violates TRIPs obligations. GSP may become more important in the future if the use of Section 301 and Special 301 is limited. Since most IPR areas would be covered by GATT, the unilateral use of the Section 301 and Special 301 process may be restricted. Petitioners may be required to go through GATT dispute settlement, rather than the United States taking unilateral action, to impose sanctions. According to the GSP Director, the critical policy question for USTR would be when petitioners not willing to go through dispute settlement would want to bring their cases instead to GSP, which is a unilateral program outside GATT commitments. USTR would have to make a difficult policy decision of determining which IPR cases to accept under GSP. It would have to establish whether or not cases involving areas covered by TRIPs should be encouraged to go to dispute settlement instead. Indeed, IPR industries are beginning to take the position that Section 301 and Special 301 still could be used for TRIPs-covered areas if the sanction employed is in an area not covered by GATT, such as GSP. An IIPA official agreed that the GSP IPR provision would be more important to IPR industries if TRIPs is enacted. He said that as more areas would be bound under GATT’s new World Trade Organization and IPR coverage would be brought under GATT, the United States’ unilateral use of Section 301 would be limited. Fewer areas outside of GATT would be available for the imposition of unilateral sanctions. Therefore, GSP is very useful because it is outside GATT. According to this official, GSP would be even more important because developing countries would have a 5-year transition period under the Uruguay Round GATT agreement before they would have to be in full compliance (except for pharmaceuticals and agrichemicals, where they would have 10 years). IIPA is very concerned that a number of BDCs were on the verge of taking action to protect intellectual property under bilateral commitments they had made. IIPA emphatically does not want to see these BDCs backslide and take advantage of the extra 5 years to provide IPR protection. As a result, the IIPA official saw great potential for bilateral engagement even though IPR should soon have GATT coverage. Legislation making trade conditional upon governments’ observance of worker rights has been attached to the following trade programs or provisions:(1) the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act in 1983, (2) the GSP Program in 1984, (3) the Overseas Private Investment Corporation in 1985, (4) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency in 1987, (5) Section 301 in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-418), (6) the Andean Trade Preference Act in 1991, and (7) Section 599 of the fiscal year 1993 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act in 1992. However, only the GSP Program has a review and decision process to implement sanctions designed to enforce the worker rights provision. CBERA, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, and ATPA do not have reviews, and their worker rights provisions are linked to GSP Program determinations. The Section 301 worker rights provision of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 has never been used. Finally, the section 599 provisions restricting U.S. foreign assistance programs (primarily for the Agency for International Development) will likely have little impact on worker rights practices in Caribbean Basin countries. The result is that the worker rights provision of the GSP Program is the primary worker rights legislation available to advocacy groups, and action under GSP also triggers actions under most of the worker rights provisions in U.S. trade law. It is for this reason, to a large degree, that worker rights advocates have reacted so strongly to concerns about the implementation of the GSP worker rights provision. IPR and worker rights advocates, as well as GSP officials, have suggested modifications of the GSP administrative process for country practice provisions to be considered during renewal of the GSP Program. Advocacy groups have also proposed substantive changes to further strengthen their respective provisions. IIPA has proposed two major administrative changes that it believes will significantly improve the administration of the GSP IPR provision. Under this proposal, administration of the GSP IPR provision would be disengaged from the current GSP annual review process and instead would track the Special 301 review process. Thus, GSP IPR petitions would be filed simultaneously with Special 301 petitions in February rather than in June as at present and would be considered within the context of Special 301 submissions and on a similar timetable. IIPA believes that since both petitions require review by USTR of the adequacy and effectiveness of a foreign country’s IPR protection, combining the two reviews would significantly reduce overlapping reviews and negotiations by USTR. The same underlying facts must be provided by the private sector in both cases. However, accepting the IIPA proposal would also mean making significant changes in the current administrative process for GSP IPR petitions. Special 301 does not require extensive submissions, and IIPA would like to see such procedural requirements dropped for GSP purposes as well. It would only be at the end of the review process, when USTR made a determination to sanction a country, that petitioners would make submissions and a public hearing would be held to permit all those affected by either the Special 301 or GSP sanctions to be heard. IIPA believes that this revised procedure would streamline the entire process for reviewing a country’s IPR practices without diminishing the independent functioning of either trade program. Although the IPR standard is the same for both GSP and Special 301 petitions and the IPR office at USTR leads both investigations, there are important differences as well. Fundamental differences in GSP and Special 301 petitions are reflected in the disparities in the functions of their hearings. Acceptance of a GSP petition for full review is a serious indication that there is an IPR problem. The GSP Subcommittee’s investigation establishes the extent of the problem, and negotiations are then undertaken to try to reach a resolution so that the BDC is not suspended, according to GSP officials. Public hearings are held immediately so that all sides to the issue can establish their positions and present evidence. Then at the conclusion of the annual review process, the President may (1) find that the BDC has met the standards of the law or has taken actions to meet the standard and concludes the review, (2) hold the case over to allow time to take actions, or (3) suspend the BDC from GSP benefits. In contrast, under Special 301, acceptance by USTR of a petition is tantamount to an indictment. The Special 301 process is designed to work in the following way: Countries are placed on the watch list or the priority watch list as a warning that matters are increasingly serious on IPR issues. When a country is designated a “priority foreign country” under Special 301, triggering a Section 301 investigation, there is no question of the seriousness of the matter and of its potential impact on bilateral relations. No hearings are held upon initiation of a Special 301 investigation because USTR immediately enters into consultations with the foreign government on the IPR issue. All parties are fully informed. Under Special 301, a hearing is only held if requested at the end of the investigation if the dispute cannot be resolved and USTR determines that it will take retaliatory measures. The purpose of the hearing is to allow affected parties to express their views on the impact of the proposed sanctions and the potential level of their losses, especially where another product sector is affected. Should the IIPA proposal be implemented, the likely result would be that GSP IPR reviews would be directly linked to Special 301. Currently, there is an indirect linkage, since there has been a Special 301 case that sanctioned a country by reducing GSP benefits. As a result of a Special 301 case on pharmaceuticals, India’s pharmaceutical exports no longer receive GSP treatment. However, by directly linking the GSP IPR provision to the Special 301 review process, GSP then becomes an instrument of Special 301 law. Given the impact that the GATT agreement reached in the TRIPs negotiations would have, as discussed previously (see pp. 114-115), such linkage would likely result in further making GSP the de facto preferred first-line sanction for Special 301 cases. IIPA has also proposed that GSP IPR petitions be permitted to be filed at any time when there are instances of piracy that (1) are unexpected and (2) have potential for causing severe harm to the copyright holder if the holder must wait for the annual filing procedure. This second proposal seems to be consistent with the intent of the IPR provision. In addition, there is certainly adequate precedent provided by past acceptance by the GSP Subcommittee of emergency product petitions. For example, in 1991 a petition on Malaysian vulcanized rubber thread exports was accepted for expedited consideration as an emergency petition. The GSP Program has recently taken steps in this direction: Under the 1993 annual review, USTR has accepted an IPR petition on Cyprus for expedited review, as mentioned previously (see p. 107). However, GSP has not yet accepted petitions outside the designated annual filing date of June 1. Both worker rights advocates and GSP officials recommended that the process for consideration of worker rights cases be separated from the annual review process designed for product cases. However, they had differing views on how worker rights cases should be administered once disengaged from the current annual review framework. Worker rights advocates also proposed various modifications they believed would substantively strengthen the worker rights provision. Worker rights advocates suggested that worker rights cases be reviewed separately from product cases and that a separate advisory panel of government labor experts should assess worker rights petitions. AFL-CIO and ILRERF officials said that product petition and worker rights investigations should be separated since they are very distinct issues with different scopes and implications. They also supported having a separate panel of labor experts advise USTR. The ILRERF official also believed that the Labor Department’s International Labor Affairs Bureau should administer worker rights cases rather than USTR. Human Rights Watch and ILRERF officials proposed that the petition-driven structure of the GSP review process be changed. They believed that U.S. government officials had the duty under the GSP law to determine compliance with worker rights standards, rather than to do nothing unless a petition was filed. The GSP Subcommittee could start with the State Department’s human rights reports, which include reporting on worker rights. GSP officials disagreed with this proposal, saying that all country practice reviews are petition driven in order not to undermine bilateral relations with a BDC. They said that it is difficult enough to address these sensitive issues bilaterally with a BDC when the petition is filed by a private party. If the government were to self-initiate cases, this action would constitute a very serious step for bilateral relations. Suggestions to modify the petition process for worker rights cases were also made by GSP officials. They believed that it would be beneficial to disengage the worker rights petition process from the annual review process for product petitions. A GSP official suggested that all worker rights petitions should be examined in a preliminary stage one review that would be extended to 4-6 months to allow time for adequate investigation. He said that often BDC governments are willing to resolve an issue before it becomes more controversial and politically more difficult. He said that in other instances, petitions are filed based on new laws being interpreted as anti-worker rights, but upon investigation, there really is no problem. Such cases could be settled in an extended stage one review, leaving the serious cases for a full stage two review that lasts for 9-12 months. The worker rights advocacy groups, including the AFL-CIO, ILRERF, and Human Rights Watch, all recommended strengthening the worker rights provision. All argued that it was important to accept petitions out of cycle when mandated by the urgency of events. They stressed the importance of accepting all petitions that are not frivolous, whether or not they are politically controversial. The worker rights advocacy groups also supported a proposal to use partial sanctions in worker rights cases. They see the current sanction—total suspension of the BDC from GSP—as too blunt an instrument in many cases. It is a sanction so potentially damaging to the relationship between the United States and the BDC that it becomes very difficult to actually use with BDC trading partners. They recommended employing a partial sanction in appropriate cases to target the industry involved in the worker rights abuses and to deny its GSP benefits, rather than having the BDC’s benefits totally suspended. The GSP Director agreed that the flexibility provided by a partial sanction could be helpful in worker rights cases. He also said that USTR believes that the discretion to take partial sanctions is already in the GSP law. At the same time, he cautioned that it may not be possible to use partial sanctions in many cases. He estimated that half or more of the worker rights problems have been found in the textile and apparel industry, which is not covered under GSP. However, in instances in which the worker rights abuses did occur in an industry covered by GSP, partial sanctions targeting that industry could potentially not only be useful, but also more equitable. Each worker rights advocacy group also had its own additional list of priority changes to strengthen the worker rights provision. These proposed changes included (1) enunciating clear and specific criteria for acceptance or rejection of petitions for review; (2) basing the definition of worker rights and human rights on ILO standards; (3) reducing the time that cases are held over; and (4) revising the new information standard in the regulations, as discussed previously. There is also a proposal to strengthen the language concerning “taking steps” in the current GSP statute to instead require compliance with all five ILO standards (see p. 99). GSP officials disapproved of a full compliance standard for the worker rights provision. They said that no developing country could possibly fully meet all five ILO worker rights standards. They also pointed out that while worker rights advocates say that they only want a standard that IPR advocates already have, the issue is not that simple. While the IPR standard calls for full compliance rather than just taking steps, IPR petitions under GSP are narrowly focused and call for resolution of a single issue, not full compliance with all IPR standards. GSP officials said that worker rights cases, in contrast, are handled differently, with all five ILO standards being scrutinized in a BDC. Another proposal is to add a sixth criterion to the worker rights provision, requiring BDCs not to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, or religion in the workplace. GSP officials dismissed such an eligibility criterion as too idealistic. They said that, clearly, no BDC can meet this standard. Many U.S. government officials and trade experts indicated that the GSP Program can provide only a modest degree of leverage in encouraging BDC governments to change their practices. They said that this leverage is greater with smaller countries that need GSP benefits more, and more limited with large BDCs, like Thailand or Malaysia, which benefit significantly from but do not depend on GSP. Leverage is also increased where GSP benefits are tied to other trade preference benefits, such as the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI). A former GSP Director pointed out that if articles considered to be critical to BDCs, such as textiles and apparel, were granted wider GSP eligibility, then the United States might gain stronger leverage from the program. A U.S. government official dismissed the idea of granting textiles and apparel GSP status as a political impossibility that would disrupt U.S. industries. However, the basic point remains that leverage is largely a function of the degree of benefits provided. It should also be noted that a certain amount of leverage is derived not so much from the prospect of losing GSP tariff elimination benefits, but from a desire by BDC governments to avoid international damage to their image and loss of foreign investment. As with human rights issues, other governments do not want the U.S. government to publicly declare that they are condoning piracy or are stifling creativity or innovation through inadequate copyright or patent laws. Moreover, BDC governments do not want a U.S. determination that they are not providing their workers with rights they should have. Governments do not want it pointed out that they are not enforcing their own laws. This sensitivity is, thus, the source of the controversy over these provisions in GSP, as well as the source of some degree of its leverage. But exercising this leverage exacts a price on the bilateral relationship. Almost everyone we discussed this issue with who currently participates in the GSP Program said that it would be a mistake to enact additional country practice provisions. It was frequently pointed out that adding new provisions would reduce the leverage of existing provisions and put too high a price on GSP benefits for many BDCs. In this regard, the prospect of adding environmental protection provisions to GSP was almost universally deemed a mistake. They said that there are no international standards, like WIPO standards for IPR or ILO standards for worker rights, by which to measure the adequacy of environmental protection actions, and it was considered inappropriate to hold developing countries to U.S. standards. Further, the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations would, if enacted, decrease tariffs and, thus, also the value of GSP benefits. Many experts questioned the usefulness of adding country practice provisions when the available leverage in encouraging improved practices is decreasing. As one former GSP Director said, GSP is at the vulnerable end of U.S. trade policy because of its unilateral, nonreciprocal nature. It is essentially a gift given to developing countries. As such, GSP often serves as a vanguard for addressing special issues in U.S. trade law, since it is a small unilateral program easily altered without much opposition. He said there is no domestic constituency to support GSP, outside of the domestic importers who use it, many of whom are not organized to lobby for it. The former GSP Director said that it is important that GSP not fall subject to the “Christmas tree” effect during renewal, with too many country practice provisions added that will, in the end, reduce GSP’s overall effectiveness. Administration of country practice petitions within the review process designed for product petitions has not worked well. Country practice cases require a separate time frame and review procedures that better fit their different dynamics. The acceptance of emergency petitions for review out of cycle, as well as for expedited review, would improve the timeliness and, potentially, the effectiveness of these provisions. Criteria for accepting emergency petitions would have to be developed. There are no standards in the GSP statute or regulations for acceptance of country practice petitions for full review. The GSP Subcommittee has developed its own internal guidelines, which are used on a case-by-case basis but have not been made public. A public explanation of these guidelines would help petitioners in preparing better petitions and, in turn, would promote more efficient administration of the program. The regulations do have a standard requiring that resubmitted petitions contain new information. However, as currently administered, this standard has prevented further review of worker rights cases in which a BDC’s promised progress has stopped after the GSP review was concluded. Although the GSP Director said that the GSP Subcommittee is interpreting the new information standard more broadly in accepting petitions for a second review, this change did not extend to the types of cases raised here. Finally, the current sanction in GSP country practice cases is the total suspension of a BDC from GSP benefits. A partial sanction, in which a specific BDC industry sector is suspended from GSP rather than the entire BDC, would provide greater flexibility and, in some cases, would be more equitable. The controversy over the extent to which GSP leverage can and should be used goes to the heart of the policy debate over the compatibility of country practice provisions with the original objectives of the GSP Program. A workable balance needs to be maintained between using GSP as originally envisioned—as a measure to assist BDCs in furthering their economic development by enhancing exports and foreign investments—and its use to pursue other objectives in trade-related or nontrade areas. If greater emphasis is placed on country conditions, then care must be taken to balance the conditions imposed with the leverage created by the benefits provided. In order to improve the administration of country practice petitions, we recommend that the U.S. Trade Representative (1) review country practice petitions on a separate and more flexible time frame from product petitions that better fits their different dynamics; (2) accept emergency petitions for expedited review out of cycle, when warranted by events; (3) make public the guidelines used in deciding whether or not to accept country practice petitions for full review; (4) clarify the “new information” standard in the GSP regulations to indicate that failure of a BDC to fulfill the promises of progress that were instrumental in the decision to deny a petition would constitute substantial new information that could be the basis for acceptance of a petition; and (5) take all steps necessary to expand the range of sanctions that can be taken when BDCs have not met GSP country practice standards to include partial sanctions when appropriate. USTR, on behalf of the administration, generally agreed with our recommendations that it (a) review country practice petitions on a separate time frame from product petitions, (b) make public the guidelines used in deciding whether or not to accept country practice petitions for review, and (c) expand the range of sanctions to include partial sanctions. Its GSP reauthorization proposal includes a number of provisions that make modifications along these lines. USTR did not fully agree with our recommendation concerning the acceptance of emergency petitions for expedited review out of cycle when warranted by events. In response to our recommendation that it revise the “new information” standard to allow acceptance of petitions demonstrating a lack of promised progress, USTR said that its standard already allows for such an action. We have revised our draft recommendation to recommend that USTR clarify GSP regulations to indicate that failure by a BDC to fulfill the promises of progress that were instrumental in the decision to deny a petition would constitute substantial new information that could be the basis for acceptance of a petition. While noting that nothing in the regulations precludes it from accepting country practice petitions on an emergency basis, USTR said that such situations have been and should continue to be rare events. Its reasons were that (1) it is very difficult to show that a domestic interest is so seriously affected by a country practice that an emergency review is warranted and (2) country practice determinations are the result of careful review of a great volume of information and deliberation that are not consistent with the notion of “emergency” circumstances. We do not agree with USTR’s strong reluctance to accept country practice petitions on an emergency basis. First, there is no requirement in either the IPR or worker rights provisions in the GSP statute that direct and serious harm to U.S. interests be demonstrated. The focus of these provisions is entirely on whether the BDC in question is adequately meeting, or taking steps to meet, certain international standards. Thus, using such a test for acceptance of emergency petitions is not required. Second, while it may be true that it can be difficult to show direct and serious harm to a domestic interest in worker rights cases, this may not be the case in IPR petitions. If, for instance, a major regional video or software pirating center is set up, the copyright holders may suffer serious losses in that market. Should the U.S. industry provide solid evidence of such piracy, then there would be reason to initiate a review of whether the BDC is providing “adequate and effective” IPR protection, as required by the GSP statute. At that time, the necessary due deliberation and careful review of information, as well as government-to-government consultations to resolve the issue, could be fully undertaken. USTR did not believe that there is any need to revise the “new information” standard to allow acceptance of petitions demonstrating a lack of promised progress. Its position was essentially that such a revision is unnecessary because, when pertinent, progress in fulfilling past promises is already considered. USTR also pointed out, as discussed in our report, that the GSP Subcommittee has said that it now more clearly explains its rationale and expectations in finding a BDC to be “taking steps,” potentially making it easier for petitioners to justify the lack of expected progress as “new information.” While acknowledging that there can be disagreement about what constitutes “substantial new information” in any particular case, USTR said that the real issue is one of ascertaining the facts and determining their significance in relation to a previous finding of “taking steps.” In response to USTR’s comments, we have revised our recommendation to clarify that the “new information” standard already allows acceptance of petitions demonstrating a lack of promised progress. However, we believe that it would be beneficial for the GSP Program to explicitly point out in its regulations that failure by a BDC to fulfill promises of progress would constitute new information that could be the basis for acceptance of a petition. The concept of making progress to meet international standards is at the heart of GSP country practice provisions; it is especially critical for worker rights, given the “taking steps” language in the statute. Thus, such a clarification is needed precisely because making the judgment as to whether sufficient progress has occurred has been so controversial with worker rights advocates. The GSP Program is a trade preference program that aims to promote development of less industrialized countries through trade rather than aid. Most GSP benefits go to the relatively small number of more advanced or larger developing countries that can better meet U.S. market demands. These goods are by value predominantly industrial goods, rather than agricultural goods. At the same time, the exclusions built into the program provide U.S. industries with extensive protection against undue harm. In 1992, less than half of the eligible goods received duty-free treatment. The benefits of the GSP Program may be reduced in value in the near future. The tariff reductions negotiated in the Uruguay Round, if enacted, would reduce the value of GSP benefits by an estimated 40 percent. In addition, several major BDCs have been graduated, substantially reducing the level of imports under the program. However, the Uruguay Round agreement may provide potentially meaningful growth in GSP product coverage of textile and apparel articles. If the Uruguay Round results are enacted and the Multifiber Arrangement is phased out over 10 years, textile and apparel articles legislatively excluded from the program due to their MFA status may be considered for GSP eligibility. The United States has made GSP benefits conditional on compliance with certain trade-related or nontrade country practice conditions. The IPR and worker rights provisions are the most contentious of the existing eligibility conditions, but provisions targeting new issues such as environmental protection are also being proposed for consideration during program reauthorization. Many government officials and trade experts believed that the ability of the GSP Program to provide leverage to pursue additional objectives, however, is modest and would decrease as its benefits are reduced. Adding new provisions would further reduce the leverage to achieve the objectives of existing provisions. Furthermore, if too many conditions are imposed, beneficiary countries may feel the compliance burden is too great and give up all benefits, thereby eliminating the existing leverage in the program. A key consideration for Congress in deciding whether to reauthorize GSP is the leverage created by the program and the purposes for which that limited leverage should be used. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the effectiveness of the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences Program (GSP), focusing on: (1) the benefits provided to beneficiary developing countries (BDC); (2) the limitations on GSP imports; (3) how products are removed from or added to GSP coverage; and (4) whether program provisions requiring that countries follow certain intellectual property and worker rights practices are enforced. GAO found that: (1) only a few of the more advanced or larger developing countries receive GSP benefits; (2) although imports from BDC have increased annually, overall imports from several GSP countries have decreased because of their economic graduation; (3) new General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade tariff reductions have reduced the value of GSP duty-free benefits and U.S. leverage to demand compliance with GSP requirements; (4) BDC believe that the GSP program has helped their economic development; (5) in 1992, GSP benefits totalled $16.7 billion and the United States lost nearly $900 million in foregone duties; (6) over the last few years, Mexico has received the most GSP benefits; (7) several GSP program provisions limit duty-free entry in specific cases; (8) administrative exclusions under GSP should diminish, since Mexico has graduated from the GSP program and competitive need limit exclusions have been increasing for other beneficiary countries; (9) although the administrative process for considering petitions to add or remove products from GSP coverage is generally effective and well-structured, opportunities exist to improve program administration through better information dissemination and strengthened product petition acceptance requirements; and (10) adding new provisions to strengthen intellectual property and worker rights during program renewal may place too many conditions on beneficiary countries for their continued program participation. |
Medicare is typically the primary source of health insurance coverage for seniors. Individuals who are eligible for Medicare automatically receive Hospital Insurance, known as part A, which helps pay for inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing facility services following a hospital stay, hospice care, and certain home health care services. Beneficiaries generally pay no premium for this coverage but are liable for required deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments. Medicare-eligible beneficiaries may elect to purchase Supplemental Medical Insurance, known as part B, which helps pay for selected physician, outpatient hospital, laboratory, and other services. Beneficiaries must pay a premium for part B coverage, currently $50 per month. Beneficiaries are also responsible for part B deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments. See table 1 for a summary of Medicare’s beneficiary cost-sharing requirements for 2001. To help pay for some of Medicare’s cost-sharing requirements as well as some benefits not covered by Medicare parts A or B, most Medicare beneficiaries have some type of supplemental coverage. Privately purchased Medigap is an important source of this supplemental coverage. Other supplemental coverage options may include coverage through an employer, enrolling in a Medicare+Choice plan that typically offers lower cost-sharing requirements and additional benefits such as prescription drug coverage in exchange for a restricted choice of providers, or assistance from Medicaid, the federal-state health financing program for low-income individuals, including aged or disabled individuals. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 required that Medigap plans be standardized in as many as 10 different benefit packages offering varying levels of supplemental coverage. All policies sold since July 1992 (except in three exempted states) have conformed to 1 of these 10 standardized benefit packages, known as plans A through J. (See table 2.) In addition, beneficiaries may purchase Medicare Select, a type of Medigap policy that generally costs less in exchange for a limited choice of providers. A high-deductible option is also available for plans F and J. Policies sold prior to July 1992 are not required to comply with these 10 standard packages. Insurers in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are exempt from offering these standardized plans because these states standardized their Medigap policies prior to the establishment of the federal standardized plans. Medigap coverage is widely available to most beneficiaries. Federal law provides Medicare beneficiaries with guaranteed access to Medigap policies offered in their state of residence during an initial 6-month open- enrollment period, which begins on the first day of the month in which an individual is 65 or older and is enrolled in Medicare Part B. During this initial open-enrollment period, an insurer cannot deny Medigap coverage for any plan types they sell to eligible individuals, place conditions on the policies, or charge a higher price because of past or present health problems. Additional federal Medigap protections include “guaranteed- issue” rights, which provide beneficiaries over age 65 access to plans A, B, C, or F in certain circumstances, such as when their employer terminates retiree health benefits or their Medicare+Choice plan leaves the program or stops serving their area. Depending on laws in the state where applicants reside and their health status, insurers may choose to offer more than these four plans. Federal law also allows individuals who join a Medicare+Choice plan when they first become eligible for Medicare and who leave the plan within 1 year of joining to purchase any of the 10 standardized Medigap plans sold in their respective states. In 1999, about 10.7 million Medicare beneficiaries—more than one-fourth of all beneficiaries—had a Medigap policy to help cover Medicare’s cost- sharing requirements as well as some benefits not covered by Medicare parts A or B. Of those having Medigap coverage in 1999, about 61 percent purchased 1 of the 10 standardized plans (A through J), while about 35 percent had supplemental plans that predate standardization. The remaining 4 percent had Medigap plans meeting state standards in the three states—Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin—in which insurers are exempt from offering the federally standardized plans. Among the 10 standardized plans, over 60 percent of purchasers were enrolled in two mid-level plans (C or F), which cover part A and part B cost-sharing requirements but do not cover prescription drugs. There are several reasons why these plans may be particularly popular among beneficiaries. For example, both plans cover the part B deductible, which insurers report is a popular benefit for purchasers. They also represent two of the four plans that insurers are required to guarantee issue during special enrollment periods. With the exception of plan B, in which 13 percent were enrolled, less than 7 percent of beneficiaries selected any one of the remaining seven plans. (See fig. 1.) Enrollment in the three plans with prescription drug coverage—H, I, and J—is relatively low (a total of 8 percent of standardized plan enrollment) for several reasons. Insurance representatives noted that the drug coverage included in these plans is limited while the premium costs are higher than plans without this coverage. For example, under the Medigap plan with the most comprehensive drug coverage (plan J), a beneficiary would have to incur $6,250 in prescription drug costs to receive the full $3,000 benefit because of the benefit’s deductible and coinsurance requirements. Moreover, insurers often medically underwrite these plans—that is, screen for health status—for beneficiaries enrolling outside of their open-enrollment period. Thus, individuals in poor health who want to purchase a plan with drug coverage may be denied or charged a higher premium. Further, insurers may be reluctant to market Medigap plans with prescription drug coverage because they would be required to offer them to any applicant regardless of health status during beneficiaries’ initial 6- month open-enrollment period, according to NAIC officials. Finally, an insurance representative attributed low enrollment in these plans to beneficiaries who do not anticipate a need for a prescription drug benefit at the time they enroll. Relatively few beneficiaries have purchased the Medicare Select and high- deductible plan options, which were created to increase the options available to beneficiaries. About 9 percent of beneficiaries enrolled in standardized Medigap plans had a Medicare Select plan in 1999. With Medicare Select, beneficiaries buy 1 of the 10 standardized plans but are limited to choosing among hospitals and physicians in the plan’s network except in emergencies. In exchange for a limited choice of providers, premiums are typically lower, averaging $979 in 1999, or more than $200 less than the average Medigap premium for a standardized plan. Similarly, insurers report that few individuals choose the typically lower priced high- deductible option available for plans F and J. These options require beneficiaries to pay a $1,580 deductible before either plan covers any services. An NAIC official noted that these options may have relatively low enrollment because beneficiaries may prefer first-dollar coverage and no restrictions on providers. In addition, an insurance representative noted that administrative difficulties and higher costs associated with operating these plans have discouraged some insurers from actively marketing these products, which likely contributes to the low enrollment. Beneficiaries do not have access to Medicare Select plans in all states— NAIC reports that 15 states do not have insurers within the state selling Medicare Select plans. While consumers typically have access to all 10 standardized Medigap plans during their 6-month open-enrollment periods, the extent to which they can choose from among multiple insurers offering these plans varies depending on where they live. Insurance companies marketing Medigap policies must offer plan A and frequently offer plans B, C, and F, but are less likely to offer the other six plans, particularly those plans with prescription drug coverage. (See table 3.) Our review of state consumer guides and other information from states and insurers shows that during the 6-month open-enrollment period applicants typically have access to multiple Medigap insurers, with the most options available for plans A, B, C, and F. For example, in 19 states, every Medigap insurer offered plan F to these beneficiaries. In contrast, fewer insurers offer Medigap plans with prescription drug benefits. Although in most states several insurers offer these plans, state consumer guides indicate that only one insurer offers plan J in New York and plans H, I, and J in Rhode Island. In addition, no insurers market plan H in Delaware or plans F, G, or I in Vermont.Appendix II includes a summary of the number of insurers estimated to offer Medigap plans in each state. While beneficiaries in most states have access to multiple insurers for most Medigap plans, a few insurers represent most Medigap enrollment. In all but one state, United HealthCare Insurance Company or a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan represents the largest Medigap insurer. Nationally, about 64 percent of Medigap policies in 1999 were sold by either United HealthCare or a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan. United HealthCare offers all 10 Medigap policies to AARP members during their initial 6-month open- enrollment period in nearly all states and charges applicants in a geographic area the same premium regardless of their health status (a rating practice known as community rating). Outside of beneficiaries’ 6- month open-enrollment period, United HealthCare also offers applicants without end-stage renal disease (i.e., permanent kidney failure) plans A through G without medically underwriting—that is, screening beneficiaries for health status—in states where it sells these policies. In an effort to minimize adverse selection and to remain competitive, United HealthCare medically underwrites applicants for the three plans with prescription drug coverage who are outside their initial open-enrollment period. Medicare beneficiaries who are not in their open-enrollment period or do not otherwise qualify for one of the special enrollment periods, such as when an employer eliminates supplemental coverage or a Medicare+Choice plan stops serving an area, are not guaranteed access under federal law to any Medigap plans. Depending on their health, these individuals may find coverage alternatives to be reduced or more expensive. Outside of the initial or special open-enrollment periods, access to any Medigap plan could depend on the individual’s health, the insurer’s willingness to offer coverage, and states’ laws. Further, beneficiaries whose employer terminates their health coverage or whose Medicare+Choice plan withdraws from the program are only guaranteed access to Medigap plans A, B, C, and F, which do not offer prescription drug coverage. Medicare beneficiaries can change Medigap policies, but may be subject to insurers’ screening them for health conditions prior to allowing a change to a Medigap policy with more generous benefits outside open- enrollment/guaranteed-issue periods. If a person has a Medigap policy for at least 6 months and decides to switch plans, the new policy generally must cover all preexisting conditions. However, if the new policy has benefits not included in the first policy, the company may make a beneficiary wait 6 months before covering that benefit or, depending on the health condition of the applicant, may charge a higher premium or deny the requested change. According to an insurer representative, virtually all Medigap insurers will screen the health condition of applicants who want to switch to plans H, I, or J to avoid the potential for receiving a disproportionate share of applicants in poor health. Beneficiaries purchasing Medigap plans may still incur significant out-of- pocket costs for health care expenses in addition to their premiums. In 1999, the average annual Medigap premium was more than $1,300, although a number of factors, such as where a beneficiary lives and insurer rating practices, may contribute to significant variation in the premiums charged by insurers. Despite their supplemental coverage, Medicare beneficiaries with Medigap coverage paid more out-of-pocket for health care services (excluding long-term care facility care) than any other group of beneficiaries even though their self-reported health status was generally similar to other beneficiaries. Medigap plans can be relatively expensive, with an average annual premium of more than $1,300 in 1999. Premiums varied widely based on the level of coverage purchased. Among the 10 standardized plans, plan A, which provides the fewest benefits, was the least expensive with average premiums paid of nearly $900 per year. The most popular plans—C and F—had average premiums paid of about $1,200. (See table 4.) The plans with prescription drug coverage—H, I, and J—had average premiums paid more than $450 higher than those plans without such coverage ($1,602 compared to $1,144). In addition, Medigap policies are becoming more expensive. One recent study reports that premiums for the three Medigap plans offering prescription drug coverage have increased the most rapidly—by 17 to 34 percent from 1999 to 2000. Medigap plans without prescription drug coverage rose by 4 to 10 percent from 1999 to 2000. Additional factors, such as where Medicare beneficiaries live or specific demographic or behavioral characteristics, also may influence variation in Medigap premiums. For example, premiums often vary widely across states, which may in large part reflect geographic differences in use and costs of health care services as well as state policies that affect how insurers can set premium rates. Additionally, premiums for the same policy can vary significantly within the same state. The method used by insurers to determine premium rates can dramatically impact the price a beneficiary pays for coverage over the life of the policy. Finally, depending on the state or insurer, other factors such as smoking status and gender may also affect the premiums consumers are charged. Premiums vary widely among states. For example, based on data reported by the insurers to NAIC, average premiums per covered life for standardized Medigap plans in California were $1,600 in 1999—more than one-third higher than the national average of $1,185 and more than twice as high as Utah’s average of $706. (See app. III for average premiums per covered life for standardized plans by state.) This variation is also evident for specific plan types. For example, average annual premiums per covered life for plan J were $646 in New Hampshire and $2,802 in New York, and for plan C were $751 in New Jersey and $1,656 in California. In six states (i.e., Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, and Texas), the average premium per covered life exceeded the national average for all 10 standard plan types while in six states (i.e., Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Utah, and Vermont), the average premium per covered life always fell below the national average. Beneficiaries in the same state may also face widely varying premiums for a given plan type offered by different insurers. For example, our review of state consumer guides showed that in Texas, a 65-year-old consumer could pay an annual premium from $300 to as much as $1,683 for plan A, depending on the insurer. Similarly, in Ohio, plan F annual premiums for a 65-year-old ranged from $996 to $1,944 and in Illinois, plan J premiums ranged from $2,247 to $3,502. Table 5 provides premium ranges for a 65- year-old in five states with large Medicare populations. Some of the variation seen in table 5 is attributable to differences in the premium rating methodology used by different insurers. Insurers who “community rate” policies charge all applicants the same premium, regardless of their age. Those who use an “issue-age-rated” methodology base premiums on an applicant’s age when first purchasing the policy, and although the premium can increase for inflation, any such increase should not be attributable to the aging of the individual. In addition to increases for inflation, an “attained-age-rated” policy’s premium also increases as a beneficiary ages. Although attained-age policies are generally cheaper when initially purchased, they may become more expensive than issue-age rated policies at older ages. For example, a Pennsylvania insurer that sells both attained-age and issue-age policies for plan C charges a 65-year-old male $869 for an attained-age policy or $1,347 for an issue-age policy. But over time, under the attained-age rated policy, this individual would have premium increases both due to inflation and the higher cost the insurer anticipates as the policyholder ages. However, under the issue-age-rated policy, rate increases would only reflect inflation because the higher anticipated costs resulting from aging have already been included in the premium rate. By age 80, excluding increases attributable to inflation, the attained-age policy would cost $1,580 but the issue-age policy would remain at $1,347. Individuals who did not anticipate premium increases over time for attained-age policies may find it increasingly difficult to afford continued coverage and consequently may let their Medigap coverage lapse. Or, as their premiums increase and if an individual is still in good health, individuals may switch to plans sold by insurers that charge the same premium regardless of age, thus creating the potential for these insurers to have a disproportionate share of older beneficiaries. For individuals not in their open-enrollment period or otherwise eligible for a guaranteed-issue product, insurers may also adjust premium prices based on the health status of individuals. Because the consumer guides show that insurers offer the same Medigap plan type for a wide range in premiums, some plans with higher premiums are unlikely to have high enrollment. Nonetheless, insurers may have an incentive to continue offering higher cost plans despite low enrollment because states prohibit insurers that stop marketing a plan type from reentering the market and selling that particular plan for a 5-year period. Insurers that may not want to completely exit a market may continue to offer a plan type with a premium higher than the market rate, thereby discouraging enrollment but ensuring their continued presence in the market. However, federal law requiring Medigap plans to pay at least 65 percent of premiums earned for beneficiaries’ medical expenses for individually purchased policies limits insurers’ ability to charge rates excessively higher than the market rates. Despite purchasing Medigap policies to help cover Medicare cost-sharing requirements and other costs for health care services that the beneficiary would have to pay directly out of pocket, Medigap purchasers still pay higher out-of-pocket costs than do other Medicare beneficiaries. Our analysis of the 1998 MCBS showed that out-of-pocket costs for health care services, excluding long-term facility care costs, averaged $1,392 for those purchasing individual Medigap policies with prescription drug coverage and $1,369 for those purchasing individual Medigap policies without prescription drug coverage—significantly higher than the $1,056 average for all Medicare beneficiaries. (See fig. 2.) Furthermore, Medigap purchasers had higher total expenditures for health care services ($7,631, not including the cost of the insurance) than Medicare beneficiaries without supplemental coverage from any source ($4,716) in 1998. These higher expenditures for individuals with Medigap may be due in large part to higher utilization rates for individuals with supplemental coverage. In addition, Medigap’s supplemental coverage of prescription drugs is less comprehensive than typically provided through employer-sponsored supplemental coverage and therefore may leave beneficiaries with higher out-of-pocket costs. Differences in health status do not appear to account for higher out-of-pocket costs and expenditures for those with Medigap. We found that Medicare beneficiaries with Medigap coverage reported a health status similar to those without supplemental coverage. Supplemental coverage can offset the effects of cost-sharing requirements intended to encourage prudent use of services and thus control costs. Providing “first-dollar coverage” by eliminating beneficiaries’ major cost requirements for health care services, including deductibles and coinsurance for physicians and hospitals, in the absence of other utilization control methods can result in increased utilization of discretionary services and higher total expenditures. One study found that Medicare beneficiaries with Medigap insurance had 28 percent more outpatient visits and inpatient hospital days relative to beneficiaries who did not have supplemental insurance, but were otherwise similar in terms of age, gender, income, education, and health status. Service use among beneficiaries with employer-sponsored supplemental insurance (which often reduces, but does not eliminate, cost sharing and is typically managed through other utilization control methods) was approximately 17 percent higher than the service use of beneficiaries with Medicare fee-for- service coverage only. Medigap covers some health care expenses for policyholders but also leaves substantial out-of-pocket costs in some areas, particularly for prescription drugs. Our analysis of the 1998 MCBS shows that Medigap paid about 13 percent of the $7,631 in average total health care expenditures (including Medicare payments) for beneficiaries with Medigap. Even with Medigap, beneficiaries still paid about 18 percent of their total costs directly out of pocket, with prescription drugs being the largest out-of-pocket cost. (See table 6.) Among Medigap policyholders with prescription drug coverage, Medigap covered 27 percent ($239) of prescription drug costs, leaving the beneficiary to incur 61 percent ($548) of the costs out of pocket. For Medigap policyholders without drug coverage, beneficiaries incurred 82 percent ($618) of prescription drug costs. Out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs were higher for Medigap policyholders than any other group of Medicare beneficiaries, including those with employer-sponsored supplemental coverage ($301). Higher out-of-pockets costs for prescription drugs may be attributable to differences in supplemental coverage. Medigap policyholders with prescription drug coverage have high cost-sharing requirements (a $250 deductible and 50-percent coinsurance with a maximum annual benefit of $1,250 or $3,000 depending on the plan selected) in contrast to most employer-sponsored supplemental plans that provide relatively comprehensive prescription drug coverage. Employer-sponsored supplemental plans typically require small copayments of $8 to $20 or coinsurance of 20 to 25 percent, and provide incentives for enrollees to use selected, less costly drugs, such as generic brands or those for which the plan has negotiated a discount. Further, few employer-sponsored health plans have separate deductibles or maximum annual benefits for prescription drugs. As Congress continues to examine potential changes to the Medicare program, it is important to consider the role that Medigap supplemental coverage has on beneficiaries’ use of services and expenditures. Medicare beneficiaries who purchase Medigap plans have coverage for essentially all major Medicare cost-sharing requirements, including coinsurance and deductibles. But offering this “first-dollar” coverage may undermine incentives for prudent use of Medicare services, especially with regard to discretionary services, which could ultimately increase costs for beneficiaries and the entire Medicare program. While the lack of coverage for outpatient prescription drugs through Medicare has led to various proposals to expand Medicare benefits, relatively few beneficiaries purchase standardized Medigap plans offering these benefits. Low enrollment in these plans may be due to fewer plans being marketed with these benefits, their relatively high cost, and the limited nature of their prescription drug benefit, which still requires beneficiaries to pay more than half of their prescription drug costs while receiving a maximum of $3,000 in benefits. As a result, Medigap beneficiaries with prescription drug coverage continue to incur substantial out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs and other health care services. We did not seek agency comments on this report because it does not focus on agency activities. However, we shared a draft of this report with experts in Medigap insurance at CMS and NAIC for their technical review. We incorporated their technical comments as appropriate. We will send copies of this report to the Administrator of CMS and other interested congressional committees and members and agency officials. We will also make copies available to others on request. Please call me at (202) 512-7118 or John Dicken, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7043 if you have any questions. Rashmi Agarwal, Susan Anthony, and Carmen-Rivera Lowitt also made major contributions to this report. To assess issues related to Medigap plan enrollment and premiums incurred by beneficiaries who purchase Medigap plans, we analyzed data collected on the National Association of Insurance Commisioners’ (NAIC) 1999 Medicare Supplement Insurance Experience exhibit. We also analyzed the 1998 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) to examine out-of-pocket costs paid by Medicare beneficiaries with Medigap policies. To assess the availability of Medigap plans across states and to individuals who are not in their open-enrollment periods we examined consumer guides for Medicare beneficiaries published by many states and by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). (Appendix II further discusses our review of these consumer guides and the number of insurers offering standardized Medigap plans.) Additionally, we interviewed researchers and representatives from insurers, HCFA, NAIC, and several state insurance regulators. We conducted our work from March 2001 through July 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We relied on data collected on the NAIC’s 1999 Medicare Supplement Insurance Experience Exhibit for information on Medigap enrollment by plan type and premiums per covered life by plan type and across states. Under federal and state statutes, insurers selling Medigap plans annually file reports, known as the Medicare Supplement Insurance Experience Exhibit, with the NAIC. NAIC then distributes the exhibit information to the states. These exhibits are used as preliminary indicators, in conjunction with other information, as to whether insurers meet federal requirements that at least a minimum percentage of premiums earned are spent on beneficiaries’ medical expenses, referred to as loss ratios. Additionally, insurers report information on various aspects of Medigap plans including plan type, premiums earned, the number of covered lives, as well as other plan characteristic information and a contact for the insurer. We relied on NAIC data containing filings as of December 31, 1999, for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. These data represent policies in force as of 1999, including pre-standardized policies, standardized policies, and policies for individuals living in three states in which insurers are exempt from the federal standardized policies (i.e., Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). An initial analysis of the 1999 data set revealed that several insurers failed to include or did not designate a valid plan type on their filings. As part of our data cleaning, we reclassified some of these filings to include or correct the plan type based on information reported in other sections of the insurance exhibit. We also called 37 insurers that covered more than 5,000 lives and had not included a valid plan type on their filing. During these calls, we asked for plan type information as well as verified whether the insurer sold a Medicare Select plan that included incentives for beneficiaries to use a network of health care providers, and corrected the data in the database. After the data-cleaning process, approximately 8 percent of the 10.7 million covered lives still had an unknown plan typeand less than 1 percent had missing information about whether the plan was sold as a Medicare Select policy. NAIC does not formally audit the data that insurers report, but it does conduct quality checks before making the data publicly available. We did not test the accuracy of the data beyond the data-cleaning steps mentioned above. During our phone calls to insurers, we found that some insurers failed to report separate filings for the various Medigap plan types they sell and instead reported aggregate information across multiple plan types. Since plan type information was unavailable for these plans, information for these insurers was excluded from our estimates of enrollment and premium estimates for standardized plans. We relied on HCFA’s 1998 MCBS for information on expenditures for health care services by payer for Medicare beneficiaries. Specifically, we examined (1) the out-of-pocket costs incurred by beneficiaries with a Medigap plan in comparison to other beneficiaries and (2) the out-of- pocket costs for beneficiaries with a Medigap plan as a share of total expenditures for health care services, including payments by Medicare and other payers. The MCBS is a multipurpose survey of a representative sample of the Medicare population. The 1998 MCBS collected information on a sample of 13,024 beneficiaries, representing about a 72-percent response rate. Because the MCBS is based on a sample, any estimates derived from the survey are subject to sampling errors. A sampling error indicates how closely the results from a particular sample would be reproduced if a complete count of the population were taken with the same measurement methods. To minimize the chances of citing differences that could be attributable to sampling errors, we highlight only those differences that are statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level. We analyzed the MCBS’ cost-and-use file representing persons enrolled in Medicare as of January 1, 1997, and 1998. The cost-and-use file contains a combination of survey-reported data from the MCBS and Medicare claims and other data from HCFA administrative files. The survey also collects information on services not covered by Medicare, including prescription drugs and long-term facility care. HCFA notes that there may be some underreporting of services and costs by beneficiaries. To compensate in part for survey respondents who may not know how much an event of care costs or how the event was paid for, HCFA used Medicare administrative data to adjust or supplement survey responses for some information, including cost information. We did not verify the accuracy of the information in the computerized file. Because some Medicare beneficiaries may have supplemental coverage from several sources, we prioritized the source of insurance individuals reported to avoid double counting. That is, if individuals reported having coverage during 1998 from two or more kinds of supplemental coverage, we assigned them to one type to estimate enrollment and costs without including the same individuals in multiple categories. We initially separated beneficiaries enrolled in a health maintenance organization (HMO) contracting with the Medicare program (a Medicare HMO) from beneficiaries in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program. Then, we used the following hierarchy of supplemental insurance categories: (1) employer-sponsored, (2) individually purchased (that is, a Medigap policy) with prescription drug coverage, (3) individually purchased without prescription drug coverage, (4) private HMO, (5) Medicaid, and (6) other public health plans (including coverage through the Department of Veterans Affairs and state-sponsored drug plans). Finally, those without any supplemental coverage were categorized as having Medicare fee-for- service only. For example, a beneficiary with Medicare HMO coverage sponsored by an employer would be included within the Medicare HMO category. Table 7 shows the number and percent of beneficiaries in each insurance category. Table 8 shows the extent to which health insurers offer the 10 standardized Medigap policies to 65-year-olds during the initial open- enrollment period. The table lists information for 47 states and the District of Columbia where insurers sell these plans. Three states—Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin—are not included in the table because insurers in these states are exempt from federal Medigap standardized requirements. To determine the extent to which Medigap standardized plans are available in each state, we primarily relied on state consumer guides and information available from the Health Care Financing Administration’s (HCFA) web site. For states that did not have available information in consumer guides or Internet sites, we obtained information from their state insurance departments and insurers. We also contacted state insurance departments and insurers to verify state consumer guide information for states reporting three or fewer insurers offering any plan type to ensure that we did not understate the availability of Medigap plans in these states. Information from consumer guides and HCFA data may not contain comprehensive data on insurers operating in a state at a given point in time because (1) in some states, insurers voluntarily submit data to insurance departments and do not always report on the Medigap policies they offer and (2) data may not reflect recent changes such as companies that stop selling a product or new insurers that the states certify to sell Medigap plans. Also, in some states, such as Michigan, some insurers may be licensed to sell Medigap in the state but are not actively marketing the plan to new enrollees. We did not independently confirm information reported by state insurance departments and insurers. Table 9 presents information from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ (NAIC) 1999 Medicare Supplement Insurance Experience Exhibit on premiums per covered life for standardized Medigap plans among the states and the District of Columbia offering the federally standardized Medigap plans. Nationally, the average premium per covered life in 1999 for the standardized plans was $1,185, and ranged from $706 in Utah to $1,600 in California. Medicare: Cost-Sharing Policies Problematic for Beneficiaries and Program (GAO-01-713T, May 9, 2001) Retiree Health Benefits: Employer-Sponsored Benefits May Be Vulnerable to Further Erosion (GAO-01-374, May 1, 2001) Medicare+Choice: Plan Withdrawals Indicate Difficulty of Providing Choice While Achieving Savings (GAO/HEHS-00-183, Sept. 7, 2000) Medigap: Premiums for Standardized Plans That Cover Prescription Drugs (GAO/HEHS-00-70R, Mar. 1, 2000) Prescription Drugs: Increasing Medicare Beneficiary Access and Related Implications (GAO/T-HEHS/AIMD-00-100, Feb. 16, 2000) Medigap Insurance: Compliance With Federal Standards Has Increased (GAO/HEHS-98-66, Mar. 6, 1998) Medigap Insurance: Alternatives for Medicare Beneficiaries to Avoid Medical Underwriting (GAO/HEHS-96-180, Sept. 10, 1996) | To protect themselves against large out-of-pocket expenses and help fill gaps in Medicare coverage, most beneficiaries buy supplemental insurance, known as Medigap; contribute to employer-sponsored health benefits to supplement Medicare coverage; or enroll in private Medicare+Choice plans rather than traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Because Medicare+Choice plans are not available everywhere and many employers do not offer retiree health benefits, Medigap is sometimes the only supplemental insurance option available to seniors. Medicare beneficiaries who buy Medigap plans have coverage for essentially all major Medicare cost-sharing requirements, including coinsurance and deductibles. But this "first-dollar" coverage may undermine incentives for prudent use of Medicare services, which could ultimately boost costs for the Medicare program. Although various proposals have been made to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, relatively few beneficiaries buy standardized Medigap plans with this benefit. Low enrollment in these plans may be due to the fact that fewer plans are being marketed with these benefits; their relatively high cost; and the limited nature of their prescription drug benefit, which still requires beneficiaries to pay more than half of their prescription drug costs. Most plans have a $3,000 cap on benefits. As a result, Medigap beneficiaries with prescription drug coverage continue to incur substantial out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs and other health care services. |
With the agreement between Congress and the administration to balance the federal budget and the widespread demands by the American people for a less costly government, agencies are being challenged as never before to ensure that their operations are as efficient as possible. Efforts by Congress and the administration are leading or have led to a broader focus on results, significant reductions in the size of the federal workforce, simplified administrative and management procedures, and additional mechanisms to improve efficiency. Within this context, interest has grown over the last several years in using contracting out as one of the central tools available to agencies to reduce costs in a balanced budget environment. have relied from the start on contracting out much of their work rather than performing it directly. Contractors also have almost completely replaced federal employees in some functions, such as cleaning services, travel management, and most recently personnel security investigations. As an indication of the degree to which the federal government uses the private sector, total civilian personnel costs for fiscal year 1997 were about $113 billion, as compared with about $110 billion that federal agencies spent on commercial service contracts. The issue of whether to contract out federal functions has always been challenging. In an effort to help agencies make better decisions in this regard, OMB issued Circular A-76 in 1966 and updated it several times, most recently in 1983. A-76 provides federal policy for the government’s performance of commercial activities. OMB issued a supplemental handbook to the circular in 1979 that included detailed procedures for competitively determining whether commercial activities should be performed in-house; by another federal agency, through an interservice support agreement; or by the private sector. OMB updated this handbook in 1983 and again in March 1996. This latest revision was intended to streamline the cost comparison process and reduce the A-76 administrative burden and thereby ease the use of A-76 within the executive branch. According to OMB, the purpose of A-76 is not to convert work to or from in-house, contract, or interservice support agreement performance. Thus, a senior OMB official stressed, OMB does not view its role as requiring agencies to undertake A-76 cost comparisons. Rather, OMB encourages agencies to understand and use A-76 as one of a series of tools federal managers can employ to make sound business decisions and to enhance federal performance through competition and choice. procedures for the most efficient and effective in-house performance of the commercial activity, referred to as the Most Efficient Organization or MEO; and (3) accepting formal bids and conducting a cost comparison between the private sector and the government’s Most Efficient Organization in order to make a decision on whether an activity will be performed by the government or the private sector. Agencies’ experiences with A-76 suggest that competition is a key to realizing savings, whether functions are eventually performed by private sector sources or remain in-house. We have found that savings achieved through the A-76 competitive process were largely personnel savings, the result of closely examining the work to be done and reengineering the activities in order to perform them with fewer personnel, whether in-house or by contractor. OMB has reported that savings from reviewing an agency’s operations and making changes to implement the Most Efficient Organization have averaged 20 percent from original costs. We have noted in past work that such reported savings must be viewed with caution because statements about savings have often been heavily premised on initial estimates that were not later updated to reflect actual amounts. However, there appears to be a clear consensus, which we share, that savings are possible when agencies undertake a disciplined approach, such as that called for under A-76, to review their operations and implement the changes to become more efficient themselves or contract with the private sector for services. In fact, in DOD’s case, about half of the competitions were won by federal employees. revision to the A-76 Supplemental Handbook would make A-76 a more attractive vehicle for agencies to use, no significant increase in efforts under A-76 among civilian agencies are readily evident. As shown in table 1, for fiscal year 1997, DOD was the only federal agency that reported to OMB that it had completed any A-76 studies of federal positions. For the future, DOD projected that it can save about $6 billion by 2003 and $2.5 billion each year thereafter by subjecting more of its business and support activities to competition using the A-76 process. Currently, DOD plans to subject over 220,000 positions to the A-76 process. DOD has not fully achieved estimated savings in the past, and we question DOD’s ability to achieve all estimated savings in the future. However, if DOD is able to complete its ambitious A-76 plans, significant savings are likely. then, A-76 efforts at Commerce and Interior have dwindled along with those at other federal agencies. The Department of Commerce has not done a complete update of its inventory of commercial activities since 1983 and recently completed what had been its only ongoing study. That study covered the operation and support of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ship. NOAA officials told us that the study was done because of pressure from Congress, OMB, and the Department’s Inspector General to explore alternatives to an agency-designed, -owned, and -operated fleet for acquiring marine data. However, the study did not result in any commercial offers in response to NOAA’s solicitation. In addition, the study took almost 19 months and required nearly 10 staff years to complete. It would have required even more resources if NOAA had received offers to perform the work. The Department of the Interior has a current inventory which it updates periodically, and has identified over 5,000 FTEs as devoted to commercial activities. These activities include such functions as administrative support services and automated data processing-related services. The Department reports that although it has not conducted many formal A-76 studies in recent years, it has undertaken a number of A-76 cost comparisons of its aircraft services, including examinations of aircraft maintenance and decisions on whether to lease or purchase aircraft. However, most of these studies did not involve any federal positions, and therefore are not reflected in OMB’s governmentwide data on FTEs studied. Officials at the Departments of Commerce and the Interior provided similar explanations for the limited effort under A-76. They said that they perceived that the priorities in management reform initiatives had changed and that greater emphasis was being given to implementation of more fundamental, mission-based initiatives arising from the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, formerly know as the National Performance Review (NPR) and the Government Performance and Results Act (the Results Act), among others. According to the officials, these shifting management priorities, along with the significant time and money needed to do the studies under A-76 and the need for sufficient staff with the necessary technical skills, have all contributed to reduce A-76 efforts. studies. This supplement was issued subsequent to the expiration of several legislative provisions that temporarily limited agencies’ A-76 efforts, particularly those of DOD. OMB’s revision of the supplement had the potential to re-focus attention on A-76. However, since issuing the revision, OMB has not consistently worked with agencies to ensure that the provisions of A-76 are being effectively implemented. For example, OMB made only limited efforts to gather and use the commercial activities inventories that agencies are to develop under A-76. In June 1996, OMB requested that agencies submit not later than September 13, 1996, a summary of their updated inventory of commercial activities as required by A-76. According to OMB, it did not receive inventories from all agencies, and of those that it did receive, many were based largely on previous inventory efforts. In June 1997, after not receiving responses from several agencies, OMB followed up with another request for the commercial inventory information. Several months later, in April 1998, we found that 6 of the 24 largest agencies still had not complied with OMB’s initial and follow-up requests to provide updated commercial activities inventories. OMB also has not systematically reviewed the inventories of commercial activities that it did receive to determine whether agencies are missing opportunities to generate savings. OMB generally has not attempted to determine whether agencies have inappropriately omitted some commercial activities. OMB also does not compare commercial activities among agencies to identify inconsistent application of A-76 guidance across the federal government. As a result, some agencies may not be identifying commercial activities that are similar to those included in other agencies’ commercial activities inventories, thereby missing opportunities to use the A-76 process to achieve cost savings. these paragraphs instruct agencies that their savings estimates should reflect the probable results generated by cost comparisons or conversions. OMB officials stated that they rely primarily on program examiners in the OMB Resource Management Offices (RMO) to review agencies’ A-76 efforts in conjunction with the budget review and approval process. In 1996, the OMB Deputy Director for Management asked the RMOs to examine competition initiatives, such as A-76, as part of their continuing program management and budget reviews. The Deputy Director highlighted agencies’ strategic plans and streamlining plans as being especially appropriate vehicles for examining agencies’ efforts to compete their support service requirements. However, since then, OMB has not provided its program examiners with more recent written requirements or guidance on the need to review agencies’ A-76 efforts. OMB officials said that, despite the lack of current guidance, some review has been done on an ad hoc basis in conjunction with budget reviews. According to these officials, examiners were given copies of agencies’ commercial activities inventories where they existed and were instructed to keep in mind all reinvention efforts, including A-76, as they reviewed agency budget requests. However, given the absence of inventory information for several of the largest federal agencies and the absence of ongoing studies in virtually all agencies other than DOD, the effect of examiners’ efforts, if any, is questionable. and functions, these inventories can be valuable not only for A-76 purposes, but also for identifying other reinvention opportunities. This plan for renewed OMB commitment, if effectively implemented, is an important and noteworthy development that could lay the groundwork for a reinvigorated A-76 program. Given OMB’s past experience with requesting and using inventories of commercial activities from agencies, it is clear that sustained OMB commitment and follow-through will be vital to the success of the effort. We plan to continue to monitor OMB’s and the agencies’ efforts in this area. Over the last couple of years, there has been interest in Congress in establishing a statutory basis for A-76 and for making other changes intended to expand the degree to which agencies compete their commercial activities. We have been pleased that Congress has turned to us for assistance as it has considered various legislative proposals.Irrespective of any decisions that Congress may make about the A-76 program, our work suggests that several elements are needed for a successful A-76 effort across federal agencies. Today, I will highlight four elements that I believe merit special attention. The sustained commitment of agency and administration leadership is a necessary element to ensure the success of any management improvement effort, including A-76. As the current level of activity suggests, consistent and forceful leadership from OMB may be needed to create incentives for agencies’ managers to subject themselves to the rigors of the A-76 process. By comparison with the rest of the federal government, DOD has maintained much larger levels of activity because it has incentives to generate savings through A-76 to fund its modernization efforts. goals the agency will pursue and the strategies the agency will use to achieve those goals. The first of these strategic plans were provided to Congress last fall. Each agency is then to develop annual performance plans that identify the agency’s annual goals and strategies and the resources that will be used to achieve those yearly goals. The first of these plans, to cover fiscal year 1999, were submitted to Congress this spring. An agency’s efforts on its annual performance plans provides the opportunity to consider A-76 within the broader context of what the agency is trying to achieve and how best to achieve it. At the request of congressional leaders and to assist Congress in using annual performance plans for making decisions, we issued a guide in February 1998 for Congress to use in assessing annual performance plans. In that guide, we noted that Congress could examine the plans from the standpoint of whether they show evidence that various approaches, such as establishing partnerships with other organizations and contracting, were considered in determining how best to deliver products and services. More directly, the annual performance plans can provide a ready-made, annual vehicle for Congress to use to inquire about agencies’ efforts to ensure that the most cost-effective strategies are in place to achieve agencies’ goals. As part of this inquiry, Congress can ask agencies about the tools the agencies are using to increase effectiveness, including the status of A-76 programs, and the specific choices the agencies have made about whether to keep a commercial activity in-house or contract it out. deficiencies affect the government’s ability to accurately measure the full cost and financial performance of programs and to efficiently manage its operations. For example, in January 1998, we reported that DOD has no reliable means of accumulating actual cost data to account for and manage resources. Moreover, in a February 1998 report, we noted that it will likely be many years before DOD is capable of providing accurate and reliable cost data. Efforts are under way to improve government cost data and supporting systems, but for some agencies it could be several years before significant improvements are made. Continuing efforts to implement the Chief Financial Officers Act are central to ensuring that agencies resolve their long-standing problems in generating vital information for decisionmakers. In that regard, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has developed a new set of accounting concepts and standards that underpin OMB’s guidance to agencies on the form and content of their agencywide financial statements. As part of that effort, FASAB developed managerial cost accounting standards. These managerial cost accounting concepts and standards require that federal agencies provide reliable and timely information on the full cost of federal programs and on their activities and outputs. Specifically identified in the standards is the need for information to help guide decisions involving economic choices, such as whether to do a project in-house or contract it out. Such information would allow agencies to develop appropriate overhead rates for specific operations. These cost accounting standards became effective for fiscal year 1998. Some agencies’ Chief Financial Officers have expressed concern about their agencies’ ability to comply with the cost accounting standards this year. privatization, the need for aggressive monitoring and oversight grows.Oversight was needed not only to evaluate compliance with the terms of the privatization agreement, but also to evaluate performance in delivering goods and services to help ensure that the government’s interests were fully protected. Officials from most state and local governments said that the monitoring of contractor performance was the weakest link in their privatization processes. Oversight and monitoring have been consistent weaknesses in federal efforts as well. In numerous past reports on governmentwide contract management, we have identified major problem areas, such as ineffective contract administration, insufficient oversight of contract auditing, and lack of high-level management attention to and accountability for contract management. For example, long-standing contractor oversight problems at several agencies, including DOD, the Department of Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have, in our view, put these agencies at high risk for waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.Although each of these agencies have taken actions to improve their contractor oversight and monitoring functions, these remain high-risk areas that we continue to monitor closely. In summary, Mr. Chairman, A-76 has shown itself to be an effective management tool in increasing the efficiency of the federal government and saving scarce funds. However, despite its proven track record, A-76 is seldom used in civilian agencies. OMB has not consistently sent strong messages to the agencies that A-76 is a priority management initiative. While OMB’s May 12, 1998, memorandum is an encouraging first step, thorough implementation and follow-through will be needed to get A-76 on track. In addition, agencies will need to continue their efforts to ensure both that they have the sound program cost data needed to make comparisons and that mechanisms are in place to monitor and oversee contracts. Finally, we believe that agencies’ development and Congress’ use of annual performance plans under the Results Act provide an opportunity to consider A-76 and other competition issues within the context of the most efficient means to achieve agency goals. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | GAO discussed: (1) the purpose and usefulness of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-76 in the current federal environment; (2) why A-76 is not being used extensively by civilian agencies; (3) the effectiveness of OMB's efforts to lead the implementation of A-76, which, in GAO's view, could be enhanced; and (4) observations regarding the necessary elements of a more active A-76 program. GAO noted that: (1) OMB Circular A-76 has shown itself to be an effective management tool in increasing the efficiency of the federal government and saving scarce funds; (2) despite its proven track record, A-76 is seldom used in civilian agencies; (3) OMB has not consistently sent strong messages to the agencies that A-76 is a priority management initiative; (4) while OMB's May 12, 1998, memorandum is an encouraging first step, thorough implementation and follow-through will be needed to get A-76 on track; (5) in addition, agencies will need to continue their efforts to ensure both that they have the sound program cost data needed to make comparisons and that mechanisms are in place to monitor and oversee contracts; and (6) agencies' development and Congress' use of annual performance plans under the Government Performance and Results Act provide an opportunity to consider A-76 and other competition issues within the context of the most efficient means to achieve agency goals. |
In recent years IRS and we have reported problems with IRS’ written communications to taxpayers. Instances of IRS correspondence being incorrect, incomplete, unclear, and nonresponsive have been documented by GAO and IRS. The need to improve the formats of notices has also been identified. In a recent annual report, IRS acknowledged that taxpayers too often find its notices confusing. Describing its written communications with taxpayers as a “seemingly intractable problem,” IRS made a commitment to improve the clarity of these documents. Its current Business Master Plan, a strategic planning document, establishes measurable clarity improvements in notices as one of its goals. IRS master file notices may request payment, seek information, inform taxpayers of account activity, or provide instructions related to account settlement. Many notices concern discrepancies identified during the processing of returns or result from collection efforts, examination of returns, and related audit activities. Under IRS procedures, notices are comprised of standard paragraphs written by staff in IRS functional units such as Returns Processing, Collections, Examination, and IRS field offices. NCU reviews notices to ensure that the text is clear and understandable. IRS’ master files contain specific account information for each taxpayer and IRS relies on these data to generate notices. The Individual Master File (IMF) and the Business Master File (BMF) contain histories of transactions maintained by IRS, including returns submitted by taxpayers, information returns submitted by third parties, and payments made. IMF and BMF notices may be generated, for example, when a discrepancy occurs between information reported on a taxpayer’s return and data stored in the master file. At that point, the notice is automatically printed and sent to the taxpayer. Appendix I illustrates a flowchart of a common situation precipitating the issuance of a notice—a mathematical error made by the taxpayer. The flowchart shows the steps involved in processing the notice. IRS has 94 different IMF-generated notices that it sends to taxpayers. However, as figure 1 shows, in 1993 13 IMF notices comprised approximately 71 percent of all IMF-generated notices sent that year. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the 152 different BMF-generated notices during 1993. A total of 31 BMF notices accounted for 92 percent of all BMF-generated notices sent to business taxpayers. Because a notice’s content and format may affect the taxpayer’s ability and willingness to comply, it is important that notices be clear, informative, and comprehensive. If a notice is unclear, a taxpayer may become less willing to respond out of frustration with IRS. IRS recognized the need to improve the quality of its written communication to taxpayers and established NCU in 1990 to initiate clarity reviews. NCU was tasked with evaluating notice revisions proposed by functional units as well as examining notices suspected of confusing taxpayers. This unit, comprised of approximately eight professional staff, analyzes notices for clarity, readability, and logical material presentation. According to IRS officials, functional units are required to obtain NCU’s approval of new notices and text revisions to existing notices before computer programs containing text will be created or altered. Appendix II depicts the notice revision process and the various IRS units involved. Our objectives were to (1) review a group of commonly used notices and offer suggestions to enhance their clarity where appropriate and (2) determine if the IRS’ process for issuing notices produces clear notices. To address the first objective, we examined 47 high-volume IMF and BMF notices. We selected the notices that were most frequently sent to taxpayers by IRS, excluding those we previously reviewed for our April 1993 report. These 47 notices resulted in the issuance of more than 33 million notices in 1993, or almost 52 percent of all IMF and BMF notices sent to taxpayers that year. We reviewed the versions of the notices currently being sent to taxpayers as well as any revisions to these notices proposed by NCU, but not yet implemented. In reviewing these notices for clarity, understandability, and usefulness, we considered if more specific language, clearer references, and consistent use of terminology would enhance these documents. We assessed whether the material was logically presented, whether sufficient information and detail was provided so taxpayers could evaluate their situations, and whether the taxpayer could resolve the matter without additional guidance. We also evaluated the notice’s format, the suitability of the notice’s title, the directions or guidance provided in enclosures or remittance forms, and whether IRS provided the taxpayer with all pertinent information in a single notice or whether additional notices would have to be sent to resolve the situation. Each notice was independently reviewed by at least two GAO evaluators. They considered the same factors in determining if the notices clearly conveyed the message IRS wanted to convey to taxpayers, including whether the text of the notice contained IRS’ intended message; title of the notice was consistent with the text; tax statement or statement of adjustment or other transaction was easy to read and compare to the taxpayer’s return; notice made any assumptions and, if so, whether they were clearly explained; terminology in the notice was easy to understand and logically presented; notice clearly explained what, if any, action was expected of the taxpayer notice provided the taxpayer with sufficient, but not excessive, information regarding the situation; and notice provided the taxpayer a telephone number to call or address to write to should he or she have questions or need additional guidance. We used appropriate guidance found in IRS’ Taxpayers Service’s Handbook and the Catalog of Federal Tax Forms, Form Letters and Notices to verify the purposes of the 47 notices. We also discussed all of our concerns and suggestions with the NCU Chief. However, we did not attempt to determine if the notices we reviewed were appropriate given a taxpayer’s particular circumstances. In addressing the second objective, we also gathered information to help us assess whether IRS had established a workable process for adopting and implementing notice text improvements. We also obtained data on the number of notice revisions proposed by NCU and the number implemented. However, data were not available on the length of time IRS took to implement the revisions. We identified the computer programming changes required to implement the revisions. We also gathered information concerning how IRS set priorities for requested computer programming changes, including notice revisions, and obtained information on proposed revisions that were rejected. Finally, we identified IRS’ efforts to improve the quality of notices and documented its recent testing of notice production on the Correspondex computer system, which may make revisions more efficiently. We did our work at IRS’ National Office in Washington, D.C., from August 1993 to June 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We provided a draft of this report to pertinent IRS officials including the National Director of Planning, the Chief of NCU, and representatives from the Information Systems Management Division (ISM) and other organizational units involved in the notice development and review process. We met with these officials on September 26, 1994, to discuss this report. They suggested several minor technical modifications, which we adopted, but generally agreed with the facts presented as well as our conclusions and recommendations. Our review of 47 IMF and BMF notices revealed problems with both the language and format of 31 of these notices. For example, we found that many of the 31 notices would have been improved by more specific language, clearer references, consistent terminology, logical presentation of material, and sufficient information and guidance. Format problems included instances where the attached remittance form contained directions that were in conflict with those found in the body of the notice. Another format problem we identified was IRS’ inability to issue notices that addressed multiple or inter-related tax problems with a taxpayer’s account in a single piece of correspondence. Instead, taxpayers would receive several notices in a relatively short time period that addressed several different problems with their tax accounts rather than a detailed, comprehensive notice. This could cause taxpayers confusion and frustration and give taxpayers the impression that IRS is unsure of its position. IRS’ computer system is old and inefficient and is largely responsible for the delay in implementing notice language changes. Because of the time-consuming nature of the programming required to make notice text revisions along with other program changes, a bottleneck occurs. Consequently, IRS must evaluate and prioritize program requests. Notices are presently maintained on an aging computer system, which uses an old computer programming language—known as assembler language—that is difficult to change. Each master file notice exists as a separate program and, because of the technical difficulties involved in implementing language changes, minor revisions can result in major reprogramming efforts. Unlike modern word processing technology, which processes text changes almost as quickly as typing, the assembler language uses an older programming technique that requires each letter of every word and every character to be separately programmed. This character-by-character programming is known as hard coding and affects all IMF and BMF notices. Consequently, these notice revisions are not simple or quick to do. A single change in a word or punctuation mark would require that every subsequent character be reprogrammed. This is time consuming and inefficient and serves as a deterrent to improving notices. IRS established the National Automation Advisory Group (NAAG) in 1992 to facilitate establishment of programming priorities. According to IRS officials, NAAG is comprised of representatives from IRS’ Returns Processing, the major initiator of programming changes, and computer programming officials from ISM. NAAG allows Returns Processing to establish its own priorities, in view of limited resources and the technical difficulties specifically associated with the proposed changes. Faced with numerous demands to alter existing operational programs, ISM has found that it does not have the resources to respond to all requests. Programming changes to process returns for the next filing season and those related to implementing new tax laws, for example, take precedence over notice text revisions. These higher priority demands for computer programming changes lessen the likelihood that notice text changes will be made. While recommended notice text changes remain unprogrammed, the old version of the notice continues to be issued to taxpayers. The cyclical nature of IRS’ programming activities further delays prompt implementation of text revisions. Because certain programming must be performed at certain times of the year, IRS schedules specific programming tasks to be performed at particular times—for example, preparation for the upcoming filing season. If the development of a notice revision does not coincide with the appropriate programming cycle, its implementation may be delayed for months, until the next available cycle. Generally, because of the high demand for programming changes, IRS staff submit programming requests 6 to 12 months in advance of their preferred implementation date, to allow sufficient scheduling time. IRS officials responsible for programming notice text changes said that in most instances proposed notice revisions should be submitted at the beginning of the calendar year so they can be scheduled. Those submitted later in the year may not be considered for scheduling until the beginning of the next calendar year. Because of the high demand for computer programming changes, the submission of a revision request by a functional unit does not guarantee that the reprogramming will be done. Revisions may be assigned as priority 1 or priority 2, or the revision may be rejected outright. According to NCU officials, a priority 2 status has only a slight chance of being programmed. Only one programming request for a notice was given a priority 1 status at NAAG’s March 1994 meeting. Fifty-nine various programming requests were presented, and 17 related to notices. Of the 59 programming requests, only 22 received priority 1 status, 8 were granted a priority 2 status, 1 was withdrawn, and the remaining 28 were rejected. Of the 17 notice-related requests, only 1 was assigned as priority 1. This request called for the establishment of new notices to accompany a new tax form. IRS needed these notices for those taxpayers with tax problems who used the new form. Four notice-related requests were designated as priority 2s. The remaining 12 requests were rejected. Although a few of these rejected requests called for changes that would improve IRS’ internal processing of notices, others involved improving the clarity or usefulness of the notices to taxpayers. These rejected requests for improvements to benefit taxpayers could have enhanced over 3 million taxpayer contacts, the notice volume associated with these notices in 1993. One rejected request concerned a notice sent in 1993 to nearly 1 million earned income credit (EIC) filers. NCU officials identified an erroneous reference to a section of the EIC tax form in the text of the notice. By the time this error was discovered, the notice had already been sent to a group of recipients. When the request to correct the language was brought to NAAG, it decided to retain the incorrect reference. According to NCU officials, NAAG made this decision because some taxpayers had already received the incorrect version and, it seemed too late to do anything about the problem, which was not viewed by NAAG members from other units as very serious compared to other programming needs. Another request would have merged information now contained in two notices into a single notice with revised text. IRS had anticipated that this merger would not only simplify matters for taxpayers but also annually save an estimated $2.4 million in reduced processing and mailing costs. This request received a priority 2 status and was forwarded to ISM for consideration. Because of higher priority requests, including legislative changes, ISM determined it could not implement the change in January 1995 as requested. According to ISM computer programming officials, they could not make the large commitment of resources needed to make the change. Even when notice revisions are approved, it may be months before they are actually programmed. Because of the backlog of programming requests, the intense level of effort associated with those changes, and the cyclical nature of completing the program changes, revisions were often submitted months in advance. For example, the requester of the single notice revision that was approved at the March 1994 NAAG meeting had proposed a January 1995 implementation, as had many others requesting changes during that session. Revisions to improve the clarity of notices made by NCU were not always adopted promptly. Among the notices we reviewed were several that had been revised by NCU more than a year earlier, but not implemented as of May 1994. We believe that the changes NCU had made will improve the clarity of these notices, but we are concerned with the length of time that has elapsed since NCU revisions were proposed. Although programming delays are significant, IRS has not established a tracking system that would enable it to measure the extent of the delays. There is no system for monitoring whether requested changes are made, or if approved, the progression of notice revisions from submission to implementation. Without a system to track the progress of these revisions through the computer programming stage, it is difficult to document the overall timeliness of notice revision implementation. Without this documentation, delays and other problems may go unobserved. To collect data on the implementation of its recommendations, NCU conducted a special review in March 1993 to determine the status of all its prior recommendations. The study revealed that 36 percent of NCU’s revisions were never implemented. Although the report did not document the extent of overall delays in implementing those revisions that were ultimately programmed, it identified several instances where revisions to high-volume notices took a year or more to implement. IRS recognizes that notices need improvement and has several initiatives in process to enhance notice quality. First, several high-volume collection notices have been programmed and tested on IRS’ Correspondex computer system, a letter-writing system used for replying to taxpayers’ correspondence. Text changes can be made more quickly and easily on the Correspondex system than on the assembler language system currently producing notices. Correspondex officials acknowledge that while this system is not as efficient as word processing technology, Correspondex can make text revisions much sooner than the 6 to 12 months that it often takes to implement assembler language system changes. These officials told us that text changes to IRS’ Correspondex letters typically take 30 days but under critical circumstances can be made within 1 day. Correspondex has the capacity to produce most IMF and BMF notices. According to Correspondex officials, it seems that only those notices with an unusually large amount of data imported from a taxpayer’s master file record are unsuitable for transfer. Correspondex also provides the advantage of more visually appealing print features presently unavailable on the assembler language system, such as lower-case letters. Figure 3 shows an example of a commonly sent collection notice as it would look if produced by the assembler system. Figure 4 shows the same notice produced by Correspondex. The testing of notices on Correspondex has not fully demonstrated its suitability for producing IMF and BMF notices. Testing has been limited to the collection notices maintained on the Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS), which operates on the same computer system as Correspondex. This computer system is different from the computer system on which IMF and BMF operate. IDRS notices are easier to convert to Correspondex than IMF and BMF notices. However, Correspondex officials said that they are confident they can successfully produce IMF and BMF notices even though transferring these notices will technically be more difficult than the IDRS notices. While the officials said it would be fairly simple to reproduce the standard notice text on Correspondex, new computer programs would have to be written to merge taxpayer data into the appropriate places in the new Correspondex text. Assembler language system programmers would need to develop these programs and would continue to be responsible for accessing the master file. However, once this programming transition is complete, the assembler programming staff would play a smaller role in the notice process and may be able to devote more time to higher priority work. Correspondex officials also told us that they hope to test several IMF and BMF notices this year and, if successful, would like to ultimately transfer most notices, including IMF and BMF notices, to Correspondex. Even if all IMF and BMF notices could not be transferred, a substantial number of other notices could be improved by transferring those with recognized clarity problems or volume. As we discussed earlier, many taxpayer contacts could be improved by changing a relatively few notices. Both Correspondex and NCU officials are optimistic about this testing and view it as a way to improve the clarity and format of notices, at least until more sophisticated developments arrive later this decade under TSM. However, IRS management has not committed to expanding the testing to IMF and BMF notices. A second effort in progress is the testing of a new notice format, which includes a revised “tax statement” modelled after a version suggested in our April 1993 report on IRS forms, publications, and notices. Taxpayers who are sent math error notices from the IRS Kansas City Service Center receive either the traditional IRS format or the new version modelled after our suggestion. Each version has a unique control number. Taxpayers calling or writing IRS about the notice provide this unique number, thereby enabling IRS to determine which version generates the most questions. This test will help IRS decide whether it would be cost beneficial to convert to the new format. Preliminary response data clearly demonstrate that taxpayers who receive the traditional version continue to contact IRS with questions at twice the rate of the taxpayers receiving the new version. A third effort involves the acquisition of new printing equipment for IRS’ 10 service centers. These printers should improve the general appearance of notices. IRS prints master file notices in upper-case type because with the current equipment its lower-case type is illegible. The new printers could feature lower-case type and different fonts. Another advantage would be that the notice borders would be printed as text. These borders often contain important information regarding where taxpayers should call or write for additional assistance. Presently, borders are contained on various plastic overlays that are copied on to paper before the notice text is printed. By printing these borders as text, the likelihood that a notice would be issued with an inappropriate border, which could confuse taxpayers, should be reduced. Finally, a fourth effort involves a TSM initiative that may also lead to improved notices. TSM is exploring ways of issuing single notices that could address multiple tax issues. IRS currently sends taxpayers with multiple or inter-related tax problems a separate notice for each tax matter. The receipt of several notices within a brief period may both confuse and frustrate taxpayers. The master file lacks the ability to identify and address multiple tax problems in a single notice. However, TSM officials hope to be able to deliver to taxpayers comprehensive notices containing all account activity and adjustments. In addition to these ongoing efforts, IRS is considering other ways of supplementing notices so they become more useful and understandable to taxpayers. IRS is considering (1) placing commonly asked questions and answers on the back of each notice and (2) expanding the existing tele-tax system to include notice information. This system operates on a toll-free number and provides prerecorded explanations about tax return preparation. IRS officials told us that often taxpayers merely want to speak to a telephone assistor and confirm that their interpretation of a notice is correct. These officials speculated that the common questions and answers placed on the notices themselves, along with the general notice information to be put on tele-tax, may provide some taxpayers with sufficient information and a greater comfort level, thereby decreasing the number of taxpayers who require the assistance of a telephone assistor. IRS can do more to improve the clarity of its notices. We suggested clarity changes to 31 of the 47 notices we reviewed. These suggestions related to the content, appearance, and sufficiency of instructions the notices provided to taxpayers. In addition, the series of multiple notices, which may be sent to taxpayers with numerous or inter-related tax problems, is another area where gains in clarity improvement can be made. An ongoing TSM effort addressing this problem, if successful, would make a major contribution to notice clarity. While IRS recognizes the importance of better communications with taxpayers and makes efforts to enhance taxpayer understanding of existing notices, taxpayers continue to receive notices that do not reflect the most recently recommended versions approved by NCU. These recommended notice changes include language and format modifications that are designed to improve notice clarity and usefulness. Computer limitations appear to be one of the most important causes of continued use of notices that IRS processes have identified as needing revision. Notices are generated from the IMF-BMF computer system, and this system cannot make notice revisions efficiently. Text changes require extensive and time-consuming programming efforts. Because of other high-priority programming requests and limited programming resources, computer programming priorities generally do not favor notice language changes. Thus, few changes survive this process. Those that do are made with great difficulty and may take over a year to complete because of the programming requirements. IRS has a different computer system on which Correspondex operates, and Correspondex may provide an alternative to the IMF-BMF computer system for issuing notices. Text changes can be made much more quickly and easily on Correspondex. Although Correspondex officials are confident that Correspondex can produce IMF and BMF notices, they said tests using those notices have not been made. The lack of a system to track the progress of proposed notice language changes limits IRS’ ability to oversee notice clarity improvements. Delays may not be detected and millions of unclear notices may be issued to taxpayers in the interim. We recommend that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue test the feasibility of using Correspondex to produce IMF and BMF notices and, if possible, transfer as many IMF and BMF notices as practical to the Correspondex system. To help the transition to Correspondex, we recommend that notices be transferred in stages and that a mechanism be established or an existing body, such as NAAG, establish the order in which notices would be transferred. The ease of the transition, the costs of the transfer, and the benefits of making these transfers should all be considered in establishing the order. We recommend that the Commissioner establish a system to monitor proposed notice text revisions to oversee progress or problems encountered in improving notice clarity. This system should be able to identify when a revision was proposed and the revision status at all times until it is implemented. We also recommend that the Commissioner include in the monitoring system a threshold beyond which delays must be appropriately followed up and resolved. We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from IRS officials. These comments were supplemented by a memo elaborating on remarks made during our previous discussion. IRS agreed with our comments that more can be done to improve the clarity of notices to taxpayers and also with our recommendations. IRS also suggested some technical changes that we considered in preparing the final report. Specifically, IRS has agreed to test the feasibility of using Correspondex to produce both IMF and BMF notices. IRS has also agreed to pursue the development of a system to monitor implementation of proposed notice text revisions in the context of its planned Tax System Modernization efforts and business vision-related actions. IRS intends for this system to ensure that proposed revisions are considered and implemented in a timely manner. In addition, IRS also agreed to consider most of the suggested notice text revisions we offered to clarify the text of the master file notices we reviewed during the course of this assignment. We are sending copies of this report to other congressional committees, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and other interested parties. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. If you or your staff have any questions concerning the report, please call me on (202) 512-9110. ? ? detected? data detected? ? notice(s) NCU proposes revision-seeks agreement from ? RIS ? ? To assess the clarity and usefulness of IRS notices, we reviewed 47 Individual Master File (IMF) and Business Master File (BMF) notices that IRS frequently sends to taxpayers. These notices accounted for about 50 percent of all IMF and BMF notices sent to taxpayers in 1993. As explained in more detail in the objectives, scope, and methodology section of this report, we used a long list of factors to determine whether each notice clearly conveyed the message IRS wanted to convey. For example, we reviewed each notice to determine whether (1) the title of the notice was consistent with the text and (2) the terminology in the notice was easy to understand and presented in a logical order. We used these factors to judge clarity because IRS had not established guidance to determine what constitutes a clear notice. We identified items of concern in 31 of the 47 notices. Our concerns take into account the version of the notice currently being sent to taxpayers and, if applicable, the revision proposed by NCU. At the time we did our work, NCU had reviewed 46 of the 47 notices. Our concerns include the need for additional guidance, more specific language, clearer references, appropriate terminology, logical presentation of material, sufficient information or detail, and correct and consistent formats. We also identified several IMF and BMF notices that could confuse or frustrate taxpayers who may receive several of these notices, instead of a single comprehensive notice, that would summarize the status of their tax accounts. These notices are also identified in this appendix. Among the notices we reviewed were several NCU revisions proposed more than a year ago, but not yet implemented at the time we did our work. Our positions on these notices mirrored NCU’s. Our only additional concern was the length of time that had elapsed since NCU’s revision was proposed. IRS already has efforts underway that should help address some of our concerns. NCU officials generally agreed with our suggestions but typically could not specify if and when our suggestions would be adopted. The delays in implementing notice text revisions, as discussed in the body of this report, often precluded the officials from giving a more precise response. Our specific concerns with the IMF and BMF notices that we reviewed are noted in this appendix. IRS’ response immediately follows. Also, examples of these notices currently being sent to taxpayers accompany our concerns highlighting the potential problem. In some cases, we raised the same concern with more than one notice. In these instances, we described the concern in relation to a particular notice and mentioned the other notices with comparable problems. Type of change: additional guidance and specific language. This notice assumes that to Social Security Association’s (SSA) records need correction, which may not be true. It suggests that the error was made either by the taxpayer or SSA and does not acknowledge that the error could be IRS’s. We suggested IRS advise the taxpayer how to correct IRS’ information if the error was not made by SSA or the taxpayer. We also noted this concern on several other notices including CP 54B, CP 54G, CP 54Q, and CP 59. Examples of these notices are not shown in this report. Similarly, we found the notice’s title does not acknowledge the possibility that IRS records may need correction. We suggested a more suitable title such as “IRS/SSA Records Do Not Agree.” IRS agreed to consider this suggestion. Type of change: specific language. This notice does not stress the importance of why the SSA’ records should be correct. We suggested emphasizing that correct information is needed so SSA can provide individuals with proper credit for all earned income, thereby protecting their earnings record and future social security benefits. IRS agreed to consider this suggestion. Type of change: appropriate terminology. This notice currently includes excerpts from the applicable penalty and interest sections of IRS’ Notice 746, which is a preprinted explanation of IRS’ penalty and interest policies. The explanations in this notice are extremely detailed and may be confusing for the taxpayer. Some of the explanations may not apply in every case. We suggested that a brief and clear explanation of the specific penalty and interest charges being levied against the taxpayer receiving the notice be provided. IRS agreed that our suggestion had merit. IRS had already been working on a CP 14 revision designed by one of its Service Centers as an interim step in combining the CP 14 with the relevant parts of Notice 746. Typically, Notice 746 is enclosed with the CP 14. IRS plans to discontinue Notice 746 by providing only the applicable penalty and interest explanations in the notice text. Providing only the pertinent explanations will prevent the taxpayer from searching through irrelevant narrative. IRS is also clarifying the language and developing an easier to read format for the CP 14. Type of change: logical presentation of material. We suggested that the tax statement be placed at the top of this notice. Placing the paragraph requesting the taxpayer to write IRS with questions after the tax statement enhances the clarity of the notice. We also offered this suggestion on a related notice, the CP 30A, concerning a reduction in the estimated tax penalty (see fig. III.4). IRS agreed to consider this suggestion. Type of change: logical presentation of material. We suggested that a tax statement similar to the one recommended on page 8 of our previous report be adopted. Such a tax statement would provide a better summary of what the taxpayer reported on their return and how IRS had made any needed corrections. We also noted this concern on the CP 30A noted above and the CP 132, which is an IMF math error notice. IRS agreed that our suggested tax statement is preferable. They stated, however, that IRS is not able to use this type of statement at the present time because of the limitations of its current printing equipment. IRS is presently testing a new tax statement format on two other math error notices. The testing is being conducted on special printing equipment in one of the service centers. IRS cautioned us that complete implementation of this effort could not occur until 1995. Type of change: specific language. We suggested revising the first sentence of this notice to “We reduced your Estimated Tax Penalty . . .,” deleting the words “or eliminated” because they are unnecessary. If the penalty was eliminated, it would, in fact, be reduced to zero. We believe that this change would be less confusing to taxpayers. IRS agreed to consider our suggestion. Type of change: specific language. NCU has proposed a revision to this notice. The currently programmed title is more descriptive than the proposed title, which merely refers to “another debt.” The current title specifies “other federal taxes owed.” Because “another debt” could refer to debts owed to other federal agencies and IRS already has another separate notice to address such situations, we thought the title should be as specific as possible and refer to the other federal taxes owed. IRS agreed to consider revising the title of the proposed version of this notice and using the currently programmed title. Type of change: additional guidance. The text of this notice refers to a filing status code. We noted that taxpayers may not understand this code and may be confused. We suggested that IRS use a brief narrative explanation rather than a numerical computer code. IRS agreed to consider this suggestion. Type of change: specific language and sufficient information and detail. We suggested clarifying both the language and tax statement portion of this notice so taxpayers would have an easier time understanding IRS’ computations. First, the notice states the amount unpaid from prior notices should reflect any credits and payments made since the last notice. We suggested revising the last sentence in the first paragraph to read: “We figured this amount as follows:”. Second, to make this clearer to the taxpayer, we suggested the statement start with the amount due from the last notice. Separate lines could show credits or payments made since that notice. This would make it easier for the taxpayer to identify credits or payments reflected in IRS’ records since the last notice. IRS advised us that they do not maintain a history of taxpayers’ prior balances. As payments or adjustments are made, the “balance due” is updated and the prior balance is deleted. However, the NCU Chief noted that IRS may be able to show payments made by the taxpayer since the last notice. This would at least provide the taxpayer with information about whether all payments had been credited to the account. IRS agreed to explore this possibility. Type of change: appropriate terminology. We found the second sentence of the second paragraph to be confusing. We suggested revising it to read: “The penalty and interest above are based on amounts you paid late plus amounts unpaid from prior notices.” IRS agreed to consider this suggestion. Type of change: clear reference. We found the “Credit Balance” and “Underpayment” references in the “Tax Statement of IRS Changes” section of the NCU’s revision of this notice confusing. We thought the term Credit Balance suggested that the taxpayer had overpaid the tax and hence, received a credit. Yet the term Underpayment on the next line clearly shows that the taxpayer owes money to IRS. As this is a balance due notice, we suggested eliminating “Credit Balance” and replacing it with a term less likely to confuse taxpayers, such as “Total Credits Applied.” We also noted this problem on another notice, currently in use, the CP 161 —a request for payment notice (example not included in this report). IRS agreed to consider revising this terminology as we suggested. Type of change: logical presentation of material. For clarity, we suggested reversing the second paragraph concerning the amount owed and the third paragraph containing payment instructions. IRS agreed to consider rearranging these paragraphs. Type of change: clear reference. We questioned why the “penalty for late payment” appeared in the list of charges when the amount charged was zero. We suggested that if the taxpayer was not charged a penalty this line in the statement should be suppressed. We also suggested that if the taxpayer was to be charged a penalty, this fact should be explained in the preceding paragraphs. IRS advised us that a programming command may be responsible for the presence of the zero balance on the penalty line. IRS agreed it would be preferable to suppress this line if no penalty is to be applied. They agreed to pursue this matter. IRS also agreed to consider adding a brief explanation in the preceding paragraphs if a penalty has been charged. Type of change: logical presentation of material. The “Tax Statement” summarizing the status of the taxpayer’s account is the last item appearing on this notice. We suggested moving this statement before the payment instructions to enhance clarity. We also noted this problem on the CP 161 and CP 163, notices reminding taxpayers of balances due. Examples of these notices are not included in this report. IRS agreed to consider adopting our suggestion. Type of change: sufficient information and detail. To calculate the penalty, it is essential to know the number of months by which the return was late or considered incomplete. We suggested that IRS provide this information on the notice so the taxpayer can understand why a penalty has been assessed, determine how IRS calculated the penalty, and then decide if they agree the penalty is appropriate. IRS advised us that after the computer calculates the penalty it does not retain a history or any information regarding dates used in that calculation. However, IRS agreed to explore the possibility of inserting the date the return was due and the date it was received. This would allow the taxpayer to make this calculation themselves with the same information available to IRS. IRS said that the notice should specifically indicate whether the penalty is for a late or an incomplete return. IRS also said they are trying to eliminate notices with an “either/or” situation; in this case, the late or incomplete return. Type of change: appropriate terminology. We found the level of detail provided in this notice to be overwhelming, particularly as the notice is proposing, not assessing a penalty. We suggested requesting the necessary information from the taxpayer and advising them that if the information is not received within a specified time, that a penalty will then be assessed on the basis of available information. IRS stated they had already identified the excessive detail in this notice as a concern and raised this matter with Returns Processing, the appropriate functional unit. Although Returns Processing officials regard this information as necessary, IRS agreed to pursue this matter with a Returns Processing task force, which had recently been established to identify and resolve returns processing type problems. IRS indicated that one alternative may be to delay sending a notice until a penalty is actually assessed, rather than when it is proposed. Type of change: sufficient information and detail. We suggested that the notice contain a record of tax deposits. This would allow taxpayers to identify a discrepancy by reconciling their records of deposits to IRS’ records. IRS advised us that it is not possible for the existing computer and printing equipment to supply this kind of information on a notice. It may be possible with the acquisition of the new equipment under TSM. Type of change: appropriate terminology. We found that the currently used versions of these notices were too terse and lacked a sufficient explanation for taxpayers. However, we found the NCU’s proposed version to be confusing because of an excessive amount of detail. We found the statements relating to the installment agreements and the charges in the computation of change statement to be the most likely ones to confuse taxpayers. We suggested that NCU seek a middle ground so taxpayers were supplied with enough information to respond appropriately but were not overwhelmed with unnecessary details and technical terminology. We also noted this concern on the CP 220, a balance due adjustment notice. IRS agreed these notices are troublesome. They agreed to review them again to assess their clarity. NCU is presently working with Returns Processing to simplify these notices. Type of change: sufficient information and detail. We suggested that IRS provide additional information on the number of forms involved and the period by which they were late. This would clarify IRS’ penalty calculation and make the notice easier for the taxpayer to understand. IRS agreed to consider our suggestion. They explained there is a similar notice—the CP 945, which deals with Form 1099—that is sent in the same envelope. IRS is now working to combine these notices into a single notice. However, the computer programming involved in this change is complex and time consuming. IRS is not sure when this effort will be completed. Type of change: specific language. We suggested that the title of this notice be supplemented with “Statement of Your Account—Payment Applied”. This change would alert the taxpayer and would also be consistent with other IRS notices. IRS agreed to consider this suggestion. Type of change: appropriate terminology. We found the first sentence of this notice to be confusing. We suggested revising it to read: “We removed a credit for an amount that was incorrectly applied to your account for Form (xxxx) for Tax Year (xxxx).” IRS said NCU had not performed an in-depth review of this notice and indicated they would consider this suggestion. Type of change: sufficient information and detail. We questioned why this notice suggests that the taxpayer call the IRS number in their local directory rather than provide a number for the office that is most familiar with the taxpayer’s case. IRS said they are required to put both a local and toll-free number on notices. However, they acknowledged that including both the local and toll-free numbers may be confusing, as the “local” number may actually be a long-distance call. IRS hopes to clarify that local numbers may be long distance but that taxpayers are more likely to reach a representative familiar with their case than those calling the toll-free number. Linda Schmeer, Evaluator Donald R. White, 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 Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) taxpayer notices, focusing on: (1) possible improvements to the notices; and (2) IRS processes for ensuring that its notices clearly convey essential information to taxpayers. GAO found that: (1) 31 of the 47 most commonly used notices that it reviewed have clarity problems such as language, content, and format; (2) needed improvements to the notices include more specific language, clearer references, consistent terminology, logical presentation of material, and sufficient information and guidance on how to resolve taxpayer problems; (3) despite internal reviews and recommendations to improve the notices, IRS has delayed many notice revisions and has failed to implement others primarily due to its limited computer programming resources and higher priority programming demands; (4) IRS does not have a system to track recommended notice revisions; (5) IRS is testing whether its correspondence system can generate collection notices and make more timely notice revisions, since it has a number of capabilities that the master file notice system does not; (6) two other IRS initiatives to improve notices include testing a new notice format and acquiring new printing equipment for the service centers; (7) IRS is using its Tax Systems Modernization initiative to explore ways to issue single, comprehensive notices for taxpayers with multiple and interrelated tax problems; and (8) IRS is considering ways to supplement notices with commonly asked questions and appropriate answers to improve the quality of the notices. |
Before his death, Osama bin Laden boldly commanded his network to organize special cells in Afghanistan and Pakistan to attack the aircraft of President Obama and Gen. David H. Petraeus.
“The reason for concentrating on them,” the al-Qaeda leader explained to his top lieutenant, “is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make [Vice President] Biden take over the presidency. . . . Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis. As for Petraeus, he is the man of the hour . . . and killing him would alter the war’s path” in Afghanistan.
Administration officials said Friday that the Obama-Petraeus plot was never a serious threat.
The scheme is described in one of the documents taken from bin Laden’s compound by U.S. forces on May 2, the night he was killed. I was given an exclusive look at some of these remarkable documents by a senior administration official. They have been declassified and will be available soon to the public in their original Arabic texts and translations.
The man bin Laden hoped would carry out the attacks on Obama and Petraeus was the Pakistani terrorist Ilyas Kashmiri. “Please ask brother Ilyas to send me the steps he has taken into that work,” bin Laden wrote to his top lieutenant, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman. A month after bin Laden’s death, Kashmiri was killed in a U.S. drone attack.
The plot to target Obama was probably bluster, since al-Qaeda apparently lacked the weapons to shoot down U.S. aircraft. But it’s a chilling reminder that even when he was embattled and in hiding, bin Laden still dreamed of pulling off another spectacular terror attack against the United States.
The terrorist leader urged in a 48-page directive to Atiyah to focus “every effort that could be spent on attacks in America,” instead of operations within Muslim nations. He told Atiyah to “ask the brothers in all regions if they have a brother . . . who can operate in the U.S. [He should be able to] live there, or it should be easy for him to travel there.”
U.S. analysts don’t see evidence that these plots have materialized. “The organization lacks the ability to plan, organize and execute complex, catastrophic attacks, but the threat persists,” says a senior administration analyst who has carefully reviewed the documents.
The bin Laden who emerges from these communications is a terrorist CEO in an isolated compound, brooding that his organization has ruined its reputation by killing too many Muslims in its jihad against America. He writes of the many departed “brothers” who have been lost to U.S. drone attacks. But he’s far from the battlefield himself in his hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where he seems to spend considerable time watching television.
The garbled syntax of bin Laden’s communications may result from their being dictated to several of his wives, according to the U.S. analyst. And his rambling laundry list of recommendations illustrates the problems of communicating with subordinates when it could take several months to receive an answer. The al-Qaeda leader had a “great fear of irrelevance,” the analyst believes.
Because of constant harassment and communications difficulties in Pakistan’s tribal areas, bin Laden encouraged al-Qaeda leaders to leave north and south Waziristan for more distant and remote locations.
Bin Laden had an unlikely managerial focus, for such a notorious terrorist. He discusses the need for “deputy emirs” and “acting emirs” to run regional operations when the local boss is away, and he suggests that emirs should serve two-year terms and write an “annual report to be sent to the central group detailing the local situation.” He allowed a relatively frank exchange with his subordinates, who voiced criticisms about the organization’s errors.
Though open to internal debate, bin Laden and his aides had rigid views about Muslim theology. Atiyah sent his leader a strident letter in June 2009 detailing what he saw as doctrinal errors among other jihadists.
Bin Laden’s biggest concern was al-Qaeda’s media image among Muslims. He worried that it was so tarnished that, in a draft letter probably intended for Atiyah, he argued that the organization should find a new name.
The al-Qaeda brand had become a problem, bin Laden explained, because Obama administration officials “have largely stopped using the phrase ‘the war on terror’ in the context of not wanting to provoke Muslims,” and instead promoted a war against al-Qaeda. The organization’s full name was “Qaeda al-Jihad,” bin Laden noted, but in its shorthand version, “this name reduces the feeling of Muslims that we belong to them.” He proposed 10 alternatives “that would not easily be shortened to a word that does not represent us.” His first recommendation was “Taifat al-tawhid wal-jihad,” or Monotheism and Jihad Group.
Bin Laden ruminated about “mistakes” and “miscalculations” by affiliates in Iraq and elsewhere that had killed Muslims, even in mosques. He told Atiyah to warn every emir, or regional leader, to avoid these “unnecessary civilian casualties,” which were hurting the organization.
“Making these mistakes is a great issue,” he stressed, arguing that spilling “Muslim blood” had resulted in “the alienation of most of the nation [of Islam] from the [Mujaheddin].” Local al-Qaeda leaders should “apologize and be held responsible for what happened.”
Bin Laden also criticized subordinates for linking their operations to local grievances rather than the overarching Muslim cause of Palestine. He chided his affiliate in Yemen for saying an operation was a response to U.S. bombing there. He even scolded the organizers of the spectacular December 2009 suicide attack on the CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan, for describing it as revenge for the killing of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. “It was necessary to discuss Palestine first,” lectured bin Laden.
Bin Laden’s focus on attacking the U.S. homeland led to sharp disagreements with his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who favored easier and more opportunistic attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas.
Bin Laden told Atiyah that al-Qaeda’s best chance for establishing an Islamic state was Yemen, which he described as the “launching point” for attacks on the Persian Gulf oil states. “Control of these nations means control of the world,” he wrote. But he worried that the push in Yemen would come too soon, and he advised his colleagues to wait three years, if necessary, before making a decisive move. By fighting too hard in Syria in the early 1980s, he noted, the Muslim Brotherhood “lost a generation of men.”
Bin Laden and his aides hoped for big terrorist operations to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001. They also had elaborate media plans. Adam Gadahn, a U.S.-born media adviser, even discussed in a message to his boss what would be the best television outlets for a bin Laden anniversary video.
“It should be sent for example to ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN and maybe PBS and VOA. As for Fox News let her die in her anger,” Gadahn wrote. At another point, he said of the networks: “From a professional point of view, they are all on one level — except [Fox News] channel, which falls into the abyss as you know, and lacks objectivity, too.”
What an unintended boost for Fox, which can now boast that it is al-Qaeda’s least favorite network.
[email protected] ||||| Kill Obama: Bin Laden plotted to assassinate President before 2012 election
Bin Laden called on followers to kill President in run up to 2012 election
Longed for another 9/11 to replicate mass attacks of the past
Orders to not only target New York, but smaller U.S. cities such as LA
Desperately wanted to 'sow political dissent' in Washington
Urged followers to strike on anniversary of 9/11 and Fourth of July
But arrogant leader became 'lazy and complacent' about own security
Osama Bin Laden wanted to assassinate President Obama as in the run up to the 2012 presidential elections, the terror leader's journal seized by U.S. forces reveals.
The mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks wanted to kill the President in a follow up mission, 10 years after the devastating 2001 attack.
U.S. intelligence officials are currently analysing over one million pages of data taken from the terror leader's compound, including his handwritten journal.
Target: Handwritten notes reveal that Bin Laden was plotting to assassinate Obama before 2012 election
The documents reveal that the Al Qaeda leader was still plotting attacks against the U.S. and wanted to find a way to kill Obama.
Bin Laden's own writings indicate that he had urged followers to assassinate Obama as a way of disrupting the 2012 presidential election.
Former intelligence officials said that Bin Laden was focussed on killing the President.
'I would say this is probably very personal on Bin Laden's part, to kill [Obama] that he believes has violated the Muslim faith,' Brad Garrett, a former FBI profiler, told ABC News.
'He is incensed, inflamed, obsessed about killing the President.'
Video footage of Bin Laden watching TV in his hideout showed that whenever Obama came on the screen, the terror leader would quickly try to change the channel.
Treasure trove of intelligence: A Pakistani soldier walks toward the final hideout of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where SEALs recovered a mass of data
The seized documents could be the most valuable find of all - a written record that takes readers inside the mind of America's greatest enemy.
Osama Bin Laden's handwritten journal was found at the Pakistan compound where the terror chief was killed in a dramatic U.S. raid more than a week ago.
In it, he directed Al Qaeda operatives to not only focus on New York City, but spread their operations to target smaller cities such as Los Angeles.
The discovery shatters previously held beliefs that Bin Laden was a 'has been' - acting simply as Al Qaeda's spiritual leader rather than its operational chief.
The journal, as well as hundreds of computer 'pen' drives also containing directives, will only add to the heightened threat level across the U.S.
Among the edicts, one particularly macabre note reveals a mathematical calculation of how many people Al Qaeda would have to kill to finally force the U.S. out of the Middle East - concluding it would take another 9/11 at least.
INSIDE BIN LADEN'S MIND: HOW THE TERROR CHIEF PLOTTED Among the cache of intelligence analysed so far, Bin Laden wrote to followers:
Assassinate Obama in run up to 2012 election
Strike smaller cities - such as Los Angeles
Target trains as well as planes
Spread out the targets in the U.S.
Only death toll in thousands would shift U.S. policy in Middle East
Kill as many Americans as possible in a single attack
Wanted to sow dissent in Washington
Use dates such as 9/11 anniversary and 4th of July
U.S. officials said the Al Qaeda leader's diary is filled with planning ideas and details of operations.
Among them were the notes for the potential plots against the U.S. rail system which prompted an advisory from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security last week.
In the journals he tells his disciples that only a body count of thousands, something on the scale of the September 11 attacks in 2001, would shift U.S. policy.
He also schemed about ways to sow political dissent in Washington and play political figures against one another, officials said.
They give a clear indication that Bin laden was communicating with other extremists.
'There are strong indications there is back and forth with other terrorists,' an official said.
The handwritten journal included significant dates bin Laden noted as preferred for attacking American targets, including the Fourth of July and the 10th anniversary of 9/11, a U.S. official said.
No imminent plots have been discovered in the journal, which officials have been pouring over since the raid, officials said.
The journal was part of a huge cache of intelligence that included about 100 flash drives and five computers taken by a U.S. Navy SEALs assault team after they swept through the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Officials said that the terror leader had become fixated on attacks on the U.S. - a drive which had alienated some of his followers, who were more focused on regional issues.
The notes also reveal Bin Laden's sinister plans to target non-Muslim blacks and Hispanics in the U.S. who had felt oppressed.
Shabby: There was also footage of the Al Qaeda chief watching Barack Obama on television
And rather than reducing his role, Bin Laden had worked frantically to direct Al Qaeda operations from his secret hideout.
One official said Bin Laden had worked like a 'crime boss'.
But the 51-year-old killer had become so arrogant that he believed he was virtually untouchable - plotting destruction by day and bedding down with his wife at night.
'Bin Laden got lazy and complacent,' a source told the Washington Post.
'I don’t think he thought he would meet his maker in that house. And he certainly didn’t make any preparations.'
Another raised the possibility that he may not have been restricted to his compound.
'There are strong indications there is back and forth with other terrorists,' the official said.
Questions were raised about why Bin Laden did not attempt to escape the building during the raid or hide in a secret compartment, but it now appears that he never feared he would be caught there.
Bin Laden has long been known to record his thoughts, but the discovery of his journal is a real coup for American intelligence chiefs.
His son, in a memoir, has described his father as recording his thoughts and plans, spending hours speaking into a Dictaphone.
The diary may also reveal more about the psyche of the man - his secret fears and terrors.
The treasure trove of intelligence recovered from the 'safe' house is producing a new lead every hour, it has emerged.
Intelligence officials told CBS News that Bin Laden had actually been killed 'relatively early' in the 40-minute operation inside the house.
Popular: The killing of Bin Laden has given Obama a huge poll bounce
At least half the time was then spent scooping up every single document, laptop, hard drive and CD that the hit team could find.
In the aftermath of the raid, the CIA has been analysing the information - which comes in at 2.7 terrabytes of data or 220 million pages of text - round the clock.
'Home videos' of Bin Laden recovered from the compound which show the terror chief watching Barack Obama on the news and fluffing his lines in a recorded message, have already been released.
The terror journal shows Bin Laden was communicating from his walled compound in Pakistan with al-Qaeda's offshoots - including the Yemen branch that has emerged as the leading threat to the United States.
Though there is no evidence yet that he was directly behind the attempted Christmas Day 2009 bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner or the nearly successful attack on cargo planes heading for Chicago and Philadelphia, it's now clear that they bear some of bin Laden's hallmarks.
Officials have not yet seen any indication that bin Laden had the ability to coordinate timing of attacks across the various al-Qaeda affiliates in Pakistan, Yemen, Algeria, Iraq and Somalia, and it is also unclear from bin Laden's documents how much the affiliate groups relied on his guidance.
The Yemen group, for instance, has embraced the smaller-scale attacks that bin Laden's writings indicate he regarded as unsuccessful.
However, the real value of the intelligence is likely to come from leads to other members of Al Qaeda and an insight into the terror network, including how Bin Laden communicated with his subordinates.
The diary could play a key role in that.
Speaking in a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday, President Obama described the information as a treasure trove that 'could serve us well in the weeks and months to come'.
'We've got a chance to, I think, really deliver a fatal blow to this organisation if we follow through aggressively in the months to come,' he said.
Reprisal: Pakistani security personnel secure the area outside the Saudi consulate in Pakistan's port city of Karachi today following a grenade attack
In a chilling statement posted on Islamic extremist sites last night, Al Qaeda warned the U.S. that it had made a 'big mistake' and a 'serious sin' in killing Bin Laden.
The terror group's media arm, al-Fajr, said the American people 'will pay the price' for the May 2 raid.
It acknowledges that Barack Obama 'is protected by armies', but asks Americans: 'Who will protect you from our assault?'
It also urges Muslims to use Bin Laden's death as motivation to carry out attacks, according to a transcript provided yesterday by the SITE Intel group, which monitors militant messages.
Tensions are still running high in Pakistan where politicians hijacked a parliamentary session in Islamabad to pray for the dead Bin Laden.
The group, including former minister Atta-ur-Rehman, claimed it was their duty as Muslims to carry out the action.
Target: The intelligence revealed Bin Laden was contemplating attacks on trains as well as aircraft - seen here Penn Station in New York
Maulvi Asmatullah, who led the prayers, said: 'Bin Laden was an international figure and above all a Muslim.
'I took it as my religious duty to offer prayers for him.'
The killing of Bin Laden has given Obama's approval rating a huge bounce to the highest point in two years.
It now stands at 60 per cent with more than half of Americans saying he deserves to be re-elected, according to The Associated Press-GfK poll.
Al-Qaeda has not named bin Laden's successor, but all indications point to his Number two, Ayman al-Zawahri.
The question is whether al-Zawahri, or anyone, has the ability to keep so many disparate groups under the al-Qaida banner. The groups in Somalia and Algeria, for instance, have very different goals focused on local grievances. Without bin Laden to serve as their shepherd, it's possible al-Qaida will further fragment.
Bin Laden opposed plot to mow down enemies with tractor fitted with rotating blades
Pre-recorded: U.S. officials have released some of the videos recovered from the compound including this one of Bin Laden recording a message
Osama Bin Laden was vehemently opposed to a sadistic plot to fit rotating blades to a tractor and use it to 'mow down the enemies of Allah', on the grounds that it would cause 'indiscriminate slaughter'.
This is according to a U.S. official familiar with documents seized in the raid on the al-Qaida chief's hideout.
A hoard of documents and computer discs taken by U.S. special forces is said to have consisted more of 'strategic musings' than concrete terror plots, the official told ProPublica, the U.S. non-profit making investigative news organisation.
The documents show he was a fierce advocate of mass-casualty attacks in the west, for instance his attempts to calculate the number of Americans who would have to be killed to force the US to withdraw from the Arab world.
But, surprisingly, he appeared angry at a suggestion by the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula that a tractor or farm vehicle could, suitably adapted, be used in an attack.
The official told ProPublica: 'Bin Laden said this is something he did not endorse. He seems taken aback. He complains that this tactical proposal promotes indiscriminate slaughter. He says he rejects this and it is not something that reflects what Al Qaeda does.'
The tractor plan was mooted in Inspire, an English-language jihadi magazine, by a young U.S. convert and Al Qaeda recruit.
Bin Laden and his associates also attempted to make sure that their PR machine ran smoothly.
They repeatedly admonished leaders of affiliated groups such as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or Al Qaeda in Iraq for not paying sufficient attention to avoiding targets that could not be portrayed as "legitimate" to the leadership's target audience in the Middle East.
A series of letters and emissaries were sent to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, warning him to stop attacks on local Shia Muslims and to avoid civilian casualties. | Documents taken from Osama bin Laden's compound during the US raid that killed the al-Qaeda leader reveal a plot to kill President Obama and David Petraeus. David Ignatius got a look at the documents, which will be available to the public soon, and he reports in the Washington Post that bin Laden wanted his network to focus on attacks in America, rather than operations inside Muslim countries, and he specifically instructed attacks on Obama's and Petraeus's aircraft. The way he saw it, "killing [Obama] automatically will make [Vice President Joe] Biden take over the presidency. … Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the US into a crisis." Killing Petraeus, bin Laden explained, "would alter the war's path" in Afghanistan. But administration officials say the plot was never truly a threat, since al-Qaeda did not appear to have the capability to shoot down aircraft. Ilyas Kashmiri, the Pakistani terrorist bin Laden wanted to carry out the attacks, was killed in a drone attack a month after bin Laden's death. Even so, Ignatius writes, the documents are "a chilling reminder that even when he was embattled and in hiding, bin Laden still dreamed of pulling off another spectacular terrorist attack against the United States." US analysts say al-Qaeda lacks the ability to carry off the plans described in the documents. Click for more from Ignatius, or the original Daily Mail report on the documents. |
We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections. Governor Johnson did that as Governor, and would do so as President.
Governor Johnson believes the Environmental Protection Agency, when focused on its true mission, plays an important role in keeping the environment and citizens safe.
Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market. Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.
In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests. Too often, when Washington, D.C. gets involved, the winners are those with the political clout to write the rules of the game, and the losers are the people and businesses actually trying to innovate.
When it comes to global climate change, Johnson and Weld believe that the politicians in Washington, D.C. are having the wrong debate.
Is the climate changing? Probably so.
Is man contributing to that change? Probably so.
But the critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective – or effective at all. The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations. Governors Johnson and Weld strongly believe that the federal government should prevent future harm by focusing on regulations that protect us from real harm, rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda. ||||| September 14, 2016 - Trump Cuts Clinton Lead In Half, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds, Most Americans Are Voting Against, Not For, A Candidate
PDF format
Additional Trend Information
Sample and Methodology detail
In a largely negative presidential campaign, where most Americans are voting against, rather than for, a candidate, Democrat Hillary Clinton leads Republican Donald Trump 48 - 43 percent among likely voters nationwide, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
This compares to a 51 - 41 percent Clinton lead in an August 25 survey of likely voters nationwide, by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.
With third party candidates in the race, results are too close to call, with Clinton at 41 percent, Trump at 39 percent, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson at 13 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 4 percent.
Clinton and Trump get similar negative favorability ratings, 40 - 57 percent for her and 35 - 59 percent for him. For Johnson, 53 percent of voters haven't heard enough to form an opinion of him and 72 percent haven't heard enough about Stein.
Among Clinton voters, 54 percent say they mainly are voting against Trump, while 32 percent say they mainly are voting for Clinton.
Among Trump voters, 66 percent say they mainly are voting against Clinton, with 23 percent saying they are voting mainly for Trump.
"No doubt the pneumonia will pass, but like a nagging cough that just won't go away, Donald Trump defies every remedy Hillary Clinton throws at him," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
"It's the definition of 'damned by faint praise,' a presidential contest where a vote for a candidate is less an endorsement of that candidate than a stinging rejection of his or her opponent.
"Priority one for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the election looms: lure the cynical, disaffected, downright disgusted electorate into their camp. That's no mean feat as clouds of distrust loom over both campaigns."
Racial and gender gaps continue to divide American likely voters:
White voters back Trump 51 - 41 percent and non-white voters back Clinton 66 - 19 percent;
Men back Trump 50 - 41 percent, while women back Clinton 54 - 36 percent.
Independent voters tip to Trump 45 - 40 percent. Republicans go to Trump 86 - 10 percent, while Democrats back Clinton 92 - 4 percent.
Voting for Clinton is the lesser of two evils, 38 percent of her supporters say, while 57 percent say she is the candidate they like.
Among Trump supporters, 50 percent say they are picking the lesser of two evils, while 46 percent say he is the candidate they like.
A total of 70 percent of likely voters say it is "very important" or "somewhat important" that the next president be someone to whom they can relate.
But by similar margins, most American voters can't relate to either candidate. Voters say 61 - 36 percent they can't relate to Clinton and 64 - 34 percent they can't relate to Trump.
A total of 94 percent of likely voters say it is "very important" or "somewhat important" that the next president unite the nation.
But voters say 60 - 37 percent that Trump will do more to divide the country as president and say by a narrow 50 - 46 percent that Clinton will do more to divide the country.
By a narrow 51 - 47 percent, voters say Trump wants to be president to do what's best for himself, rather than for the nation. Voters are divided on Clinton's motives as 50 percent say she wants to do what's best for herself and 48 percent say she puts country first.
"Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton may be King and Queen of the prom, but they are showing up solo and their dance cards are blank," Malloy said. "The winner who waltzes at the Inaugural Ball will be the candidate who finally gets the other kids to like him or her."
From September 8 - 13, Quinnipiac University surveyed 960 likely voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points. Live interviewers call landlines and cell phones.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina and the nation as a public service and for research.
Visit http://www.qu.edu/polling or www.facebook.com/quinnipiacpoll
Call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll.
1. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote? (If undecided) As of today, do you lean more toward Clinton or Trump? (Table includes leaners)
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Clinton 48% 10% 92% 40% 41% 54% 50% 33% Trump 43 86 4 45 50 36 44 59 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 - 7 4 2 4 2 DK/NA 6 2 4 8 5 7 3 7 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Clinton 55% 49% 45% 42% 35% 47% 41% 66% Trump 34 35 50 51 57 46 51 19 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 6 2 1 3 2 3 4 DK/NA 8 10 3 6 5 5 5 10 PARTY IDENTIFICATION................... REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT.. INDEPENDENT Mltry Men Wom Men Wom Men Wom HsHld Clinton 10% 10% 93% 92% 34% 48% 36% Trump 84 88 4 4 51 38 54 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 1 - - 8 6 5 DK/NA 3 1 3 5 8 8 6
1A. (If candidate chosen q1) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the election?
LIKELY VOTERS....................... CANDIDATE CHOSEN Q1................. CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Tot Clinton Trump Made up 90% 90% 89% Might change 9 9 9 DK/NA 1 1 1
2. (If Clinton chosen q1) What is the main reason behind your vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in November: mainly because you like Hillary Clinton, mainly because Hillary Clinton is the party's nominee, or mainly because you oppose Donald Trump?
LIKELY VOTERS................................. CLINTON CHOSEN Q1............................. WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Like Clinton 32% 41% 18% 30% 34% 39% 35% Party's nominee 9 12 6 8 10 10 7 Oppose Trump 54 43 68 56 53 46 55 DK/NA 5 4 8 6 4 5 3
3. (If Trump chosen q1) What is the main reason behind your vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in November: mainly because you like Donald Trump, mainly because Donald Trump is the party's nominee, or mainly because you oppose Hillary Clinton?
LIKELY VOTERS................................. TRUMP CHOSEN Q1............................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Ind Men Wom Yes No Like Trump 23% 24% 27% 23% 23% 26% 22% Party's nominee 8 12 2 7 9 9 8 Oppose Clinton 66 62 68 67 66 64 68 DK/NA 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
4. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat, Donald Trump the Republican, Gary Johnson the Libertarian, and Jill Stein the Green party candidate, for whom would you vote? (If undecided) As of today, do you lean more toward Clinton, Trump, Johnson, or Stein?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Clinton 41% 7% 88% 29% 35% 46% 42% 28% Trump 39 82 3 38 45 34 40 53 Johnson 13 8 7 20 15 11 13 10 Stein 4 1 2 9 4 5 4 5 SMONE ELSE(VOL) - 1 - - - - 1 - DK/NA 3 - - 3 1 4 1 4 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Clinton 31% 44% 42% 42% 29% 40% 35% 58% Trump 26 31 47 49 50 43 46 19 Johnson 29 19 6 4 15 8 11 16 Stein 15 2 3 1 5 4 5 3 SMONE ELSE(VOL) - 1 - - - - - - DK/NA - 3 2 4 1 4 2 3 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Clinton 85% - Trump - 90 Johnson 8 9 Stein 7 1 SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - DK/NA - -
5. Compared to past presidential elections, how would you describe your level of motivation to vote in this year's presidential election; are you more motivated than usual, less motivated, or about the same as usual?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No More 46% 51% 45% 46% 46% 47% 44% 48% Less 14 12 10 17 15 14 12 14 About the same 39 37 44 37 39 39 43 38 DK/NA 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht More 34% 51% 45% 54% 47% 45% 46% 48% Less 23 12 12 11 14 12 13 17 About the same 39 37 43 35 38 42 40 34 DK/NA 3 - - - 1 - - 1 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump More 47% 50% Less 12 13 About the same 41 36 DK/NA 1 1
6. Is your opinion of Donald Trump favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? COMBINED WITH: (If Favorable/Unfavorable) Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Strongly favorable 22% 45% 2% 22% 26% 19% 20% 32% Smwht favorable 13 28 - 13 13 12 15 16 Smwht unfavorable 6 7 5 7 9 3 5 7 Strongly unfavorable 53 16 89 51 48 58 56 38 Hvn't hrd enough 3 3 2 4 2 4 2 4 REFUSED/DK/NA 3 1 2 3 1 4 1 4 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Strongly favorable 9% 18% 26% 34% 30% 23% 26% 12% Smwht favorable 13 9 17 11 16 16 16 4 Smwht unfavorable 8 6 6 6 9 3 6 7 Strongly unfavorable 60 63 47 44 42 51 47 71 Hvn't hrd enough 8 3 2 1 2 4 3 4 REFUSED/DK/NA 2 2 2 3 1 4 3 2 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Strongly favorable - 51% Smwht favorable - 29 Smwht unfavorable 4 8 Strongly unfavorable 94 5 Hvn't hrd enough 2 4 REFUSED/DK/NA - 3
7. Is your opinion of Hillary Clinton favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about her? COMBINED WITH: (If Favorable/Unfavorable) Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Strongly favorable 26% 2% 62% 13% 20% 31% 26% 18% Smwht favorable 14 5 22 14 12 16 14 10 Smwht unfavorable 6 3 5 8 6 6 7 5 Strongly unfavorable 51 88 8 60 59 44 51 63 Hvn't hrd enough 2 1 1 3 2 2 - 4 REFUSED/DK/NA 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Strongly favorable 14% 27% 27% 29% 16% 27% 22% 36% Smwht favorable 22 15 13 9 10 13 12 21 Smwht unfavorable 10 5 4 5 6 6 6 5 Strongly unfavorable 48 49 53 55 64 51 57 33 Hvn't hrd enough 5 3 2 - 2 2 2 3 REFUSED/DK/NA - 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Strongly favorable 52% - Smwht favorable 29 - Smwht unfavorable 7 4 Strongly unfavorable 9 94 Hvn't hrd enough 2 2 REFUSED/DK/NA 2 -
8. Is your opinion of Gary Johnson favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? COMBINED WITH: (If Favorable/Unfavorable) Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Strongly favorable 6% 3% 3% 11% 8% 4% 7% 8% Smwht favorable 13 12 8 16 15 10 12 10 Smwht unfavorable 12 10 14 14 14 11 17 12 Strongly unfavorable 15 20 14 12 17 13 18 15 Hvn't hrd enough 53 52 59 45 45 59 44 54 REFUSED/DK/NA 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Strongly favorable 10% 10% 4% 2% 10% 5% 8% 2% Smwht favorable 26 16 7 7 14 8 11 17 Smwht unfavorable 8 14 14 11 17 12 14 6 Strongly unfavorable 8 7 16 26 16 17 17 11 Hvn't hrd enough 44 52 59 52 41 56 49 61 REFUSED/DK/NA 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Strongly favorable 4% 6% Smwht favorable 12 9 Smwht unfavorable 14 12 Strongly unfavorable 14 19 Hvn't hrd enough 56 53 REFUSED/DK/NA - 2
9. Is your opinion of Jill Stein favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about her? COMBINED WITH: (If Favorable/Unfavorable) Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Strongly favorable 3% - 3% 6% 3% 3% 2% 5% Smwht favorable 5 1 7 7 5 5 6 5 Smwht unfavorable 5 4 5 6 7 4 8 3 Strongly unfavorable 13 19 11 9 14 11 14 14 Hvn't hrd enough 72 73 73 71 69 75 68 72 REFUSED/DK/NA 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Strongly favorable 12% - 1% 2% 3% 4% 3% 2% Smwht favorable 6 7 4 4 5 5 5 5 Smwht unfavorable 8 4 4 3 8 4 6 4 Strongly unfavorable 7 11 14 18 15 14 14 8 Hvn't hrd enough 65 76 76 71 67 72 70 80 REFUSED/DK/NA 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Strongly favorable 5% - Smwht favorable 7 2 Smwht unfavorable 4 6 Strongly unfavorable 10 17 Hvn't hrd enough 71 73 REFUSED/DK/NA 1 2
10. Would you consider voting for a third party candidate in this election?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 37% 26% 28% 52% 38% 37% 29% 35% No 60 73 67 47 62 59 70 62 DK/NA 3 1 5 1 - 5 1 3 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Yes 62% 48% 27% 21% 33% 32% 32% 50% No 32 51 71 77 67 65 66 45 DK/NA 6 1 3 2 - 3 2 5 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Yes 38% 26% No 60 72 DK/NA 2 2
11. Do you think that Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, should be included in the presidential debates this year, or not?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 57% 47% 54% 66% 58% 56% 58% 54% No 37 46 38 30 39 34 36 38 DK/NA 6 7 8 3 3 10 5 8 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Yes 83% 61% 53% 42% 59% 54% 56% 59% No 14 32 43 49 39 36 37 35 DK/NA 3 7 5 9 3 10 6 6 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Yes 60% 50% No 33 46 DK/NA 8 4
12. Do you think this year's presidential election will be a close election, or do you think one of the candidates will win in a landslide?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Close election 69% 75% 60% 72% 67% 70% 74% 72% Win in landslide 22 15 30 20 26 17 18 18 IN BETWEEN(VOL) 1 - 2 1 1 1 1 1 DK/NA 8 9 7 7 5 11 7 9 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Close election 66% 71% 68% 71% 69% 76% 73% 59% Win in landslide 23 20 25 19 23 14 18 30 IN BETWEEN(VOL) 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 DK/NA 9 8 7 9 6 9 8 9 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Close election 58% 80% Win in landslide 31 12 IN BETWEEN(VOL) 2 - DK/NA 9 7
13. Regardless of who you're voting for, who do you believe will win the presidential election this year: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Clinton 58% 26% 88% 60% 56% 60% 61% 46% Trump 31 63 8 26 34 28 29 40 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 2 - - 1 1 - - DK/NA 10 9 4 14 9 11 9 14 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Clinton 71% 63% 55% 49% 53% 54% 54% 71% Trump 21 27 35 38 36 34 35 20 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 5 - - - - - - 3 DK/NA 4 10 10 13 11 12 12 6 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Clinton 93% 23% Trump 2 64 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 - DK/NA 4 12
14. How do you feel about choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in this year's presidential election; do you feel as though: you are choosing to vote for the candidate you like, you are choosing to vote for the lesser of two evils, or you can't bring yourself to vote for either candidate?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Candidate you like 48% 47% 70% 30% 46% 49% 51% 44% Lesser of two evils 42 48 24 57 43 42 38 50 Can't vote either 8 4 2 12 10 6 9 4 DK/NA 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Candidate you like 26% 47% 54% 57% 47% 48% 48% 49% Lesser of two evils 51 41 42 39 43 45 44 38 Can't vote either 19 12 3 2 9 5 7 11 DK/NA 4 - 2 2 1 2 1 3 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Candidate you like 57% 46% Lesser of two evils 38 50 Can't vote either 3 3 DK/NA 2 1
15. (If candidate chosen q4) If your candidate loses in November, would you think that the outcome was legitimate or would you think that the election was rigged?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... CANDIDATE CHOSEN Q4.................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Legitimate 62% 50% 76% 59% 65% 59% 70% 53% Rigged 27 42 11 31 27 27 22 33 DK/NA 11 8 13 10 8 13 8 14 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Legitimate 64% 71% 59% 56% 65% 59% 62% 63% Rigged 24 23 30 30 26 29 28 25 DK/NA 12 6 11 14 10 12 11 11 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Legitimate 78% 43% Rigged 11 46 DK/NA 11 11
16. Do you think it makes a difference for the future of the country which candidate is elected president, or would things pretty much be the same regardless of who wins? (If yes) Would you say that it would make a major difference or a minor difference?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes/Major Diff 81% 83% 86% 76% 77% 84% 82% 80% Yes/Minor Diff 7 6 5 11 9 5 7 7 No/Same 9 11 6 11 12 6 9 9 DK/NA 3 1 4 2 1 5 2 3 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Yes/Major Diff 73% 81% 83% 83% 75% 87% 81% 80% Yes/Minor Diff 12 9 5 5 9 5 7 7 No/Same 12 7 10 7 15 5 9 7 DK/NA 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 5 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Yes/Major Diff 82% 83% Yes/Minor Diff 7 8 No/Same 8 8 DK/NA 3 1
23. How important is it to you that the next President is someone that you feel you can relate to: very important, somewhat important, not so important, or not important at all?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Very important 37% 42% 38% 31% 33% 41% 28% 40% Somewhat important 33 35 35 29 32 34 35 38 Not so important 17 12 17 22 17 16 21 14 Not important at all 12 10 8 17 17 7 14 7 DK/NA 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 - AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Very important 22% 23% 42% 55% 32% 36% 34% 46% Somewhat important 32 37 36 28 36 38 37 24 Not so important 23 24 14 10 18 18 18 14 Not important at all 20 16 8 6 14 8 11 14 DK/NA 3 - - 1 1 1 1 2 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Very important 34% 41% Somewhat important 33 35 Not so important 20 13 Not important at all 12 10 DK/NA 1 1
24. Do you feel that Donald Trump is someone that you can relate to, or not?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 34% 68% 4% 35% 41% 28% 34% 46% No 64 30 94 64 58 69 63 51 DK/NA 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Yes 18% 25% 42% 45% 46% 35% 40% 16% No 82 72 55 53 53 61 57 82 DK/NA - 3 3 2 1 4 2 3 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Yes 3% 73% No 96 24 DK/NA 1 2
25. Do you feel that Hillary Clinton is someone that you can relate to, or not?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 36% 11% 73% 25% 25% 46% 38% 27% No 61 88 23 75 73 51 60 70 DK/NA 2 1 4 1 2 2 2 3 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Yes 27% 33% 39% 40% 22% 42% 32% 47% No 73 64 58 58 76 55 65 51 DK/NA - 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Yes 70% 4% No 28 96 DK/NA 2 -
26. How important is it to you that the next President unites the country: very important, somewhat important, not so important, or not important at all?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Very important 76% 79% 77% 74% 68% 82% 73% 78% Somewhat important 18 15 18 19 23 14 20 19 Not so important 3 3 4 4 5 2 4 3 Not important at all 2 2 2 2 4 1 3 - DK/NA - - - - - - 1 - AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Very important 69% 66% 83% 82% 68% 83% 76% 77% Somewhat important 27 19 14 15 24 15 19 14 Not so important 1 9 3 1 5 2 3 4 Not important at all 3 6 1 1 3 1 2 4 DK/NA - 1 - 1 - 1 - - CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Very important 75% 80% Somewhat important 20 16 Not so important 4 3 Not important at all 1 2 DK/NA - -
27. Do you feel that Donald Trump would do more to unite the country as President, or do more to divide the country as President?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Unite 37% 75% 5% 37% 42% 33% 37% 50% Divide 60 22 94 61 56 64 62 44 DK/NA 3 3 1 3 2 3 1 6 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Unite 22% 29% 45% 49% 46% 40% 43% 20% Divide 74 70 53 48 51 55 53 80 DK/NA 4 1 3 3 3 4 4 - CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Unite 1% 82% Divide 99 13 DK/NA - 5
28. Do you feel that Hillary Clinton would do more to unite the country as President, or do more to divide the country as President?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Unite 46% 13% 88% 37% 36% 54% 46% 34% Divide 50 84 9 59 61 40 51 61 DK/NA 4 3 4 4 3 6 3 5 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Unite 50% 46% 44% 43% 32% 46% 39% 63% Divide 46 50 51 53 65 49 56 32 DK/NA 4 4 5 4 3 5 4 5 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Unite 84% 5% Divide 11 93 DK/NA 5 2
51. Do you believe that Hillary Clinton wants to be President to do what's best for the country, or to do what's best for herself?
LIKELY VOTERS.......................................... WHITE...... COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Best for country 48% 16% 90% 36% 40% 55% 49% 37% Best for herself 50 83 7 62 59 43 50 61 DK/NA 2 - 2 2 1 2 - 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht Best for country 42% 52% 49% 47% 36% 50% 43% 62% Best for herself 55 48 50 51 63 49 56 34 DK/NA 4 - 1 3 1 1 1 4 CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1 Clinton Trump Best for country 87% 8% Best for herself 11 91 DK/NA 2 1
52. Do you believe that Donald Trump wants to be President to do what's best for the country, or to do what's best for himself? ||||| Looking for news you can trust?
Subscribe to our free newsletters.
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, takes what he calls the “long-term view” of climate change. “In billions of years,” he said in 2011, “the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right? So global warming is in our future.”
The former New Mexico governor did acknowledge that humans are making the world warmer in the near term, too—but he doesn’t think the government should do much about it. In the same speech, he denounced “cap-and-trade taxation,” said we “should be building new coal-fired plants,” and argued that the “trillions” of dollars it would cost to combat climate change would be better spent on other priorities.
All of that makes Johnson’s popularity among younger voters pretty surprising. Surveys have consistently found that millennials care deeply about climate change. A November 2015 ABC News/Washington Post poll, for example, found that 76 percent of 18- to-29-year-olds see global warming as a serious problem, and 64 percent want the federal government to do more to combat it. Nevertheless, a recent Quinnipiac poll found that Johnson is now running second among 18- to-34-year-old voters, just 2 percentage points behind Hillary Clinton.
“At a point in the very distant future, the sun will actually encompass the Earth. So global warming is something that’s going to be inevitable.”
Johnson’s 2011 comments weren’t an aberration. Over the past few years, he has spoken out repeatedly against environmental regulation. In a 2011 NPR interview, he instead called for a “free-market approach” to reducing carbon emissions, arguing that consumer demand for cleaner energy, coupled with cheap natural gas, was causing a shift away from coal. He made the same argument during a Libertarian presidential candidate debate in May 2012. “If government gets involved” in fighting climate change, he said, “we are going to be spending trillions of dollars and have no effect whatsoever on the desired outcome.”
During his 2012 campaign, Johnson called for cutting federal spending by 43 percent. In one interview, he noted that this would also mean a 43 percent reduction in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget. (During that same interview, he repeated his statement about the sun eventually destroying the planet: “Long-term consequence of our existence in the whole scheme of things is the sun is getting closer to the Earth and that at a point in the very distant future, the sun will actually encompass the Earth. So global warming is something that’s going to be inevitable.”)
For most of his 2016 campaign, Johnson has maintained his opposition to government efforts to deal with global warming. His campaign website acknowledges that the climate is “probably” changing and that humans are “probably” contributing to that change. But, it adds:
[T]he critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective—or effective at all. The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations. Governors Johnson and [Libertarian vice presidential nominee William] Weld strongly believe that the federal government should prevent future harm by focusing on regulations that protect us from real harm, rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda.
In July, Johnson was asked during on appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher whether he had a “comprehensive plan to combat climate change.” Johnson’s answer: “No.” He went on to argue that the coal industry’s recent struggles were a result of free-market forces (such as cheap natural gas) rather than the Obama administration’s new climate regulations. (Many experts say both factors have played significant roles in coal’s decline. Former Climate Desk reporter Tim McDonnell has argued that of the two, the market forces are indeed more important.)
But then Johnson’s stance changed dramatically. In an August interview with the Los Angeles Times, he announced he was “open” to the idea of the federal government imposing a revenue-neutral tax on carbon emissions. Economists have long viewed a carbon tax as the most efficient way of putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit warming—many see it as preferable to the complex cap-and-trade proposal backed by President Barack Obama during his first term. In a subsequent interview on CNBC, Johnson called a carbon tax a “very libertarian proposal” under which “the market will take care of” climate change. (During the Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders endorsed a carbon tax; Clinton did not.)
Many Libertarians and conservatives were outraged by Johnson’s sudden embrace of a carbon tax. “It’s Official: Gary Johnson Is a Left-Wing Candidate,” declared the Federalist, a conservative publication. After plenty of public criticism from the right, Johnson changed his mind, telling supporters at a New Hampshire rally that after considering a carbon tax, “I have determined that, you know what, it’s a great theory, but I don’t think it can work, and I’ve worked my way through that.” His flip-flop drew loud applause from the crowd.
Johnson elaborated in an interview the following day with the libertarian magazine Reason. He declared himself a “skeptic” when it comes to the idea “that government policy can address” climate issues and said a carbon tax “sounds good in theory, but it wouldn’t work in practice.”
“So, no support for a carbon fee,” Johnson added. “I never raised one penny of tax as governor of New Mexico, not one cent in any area. Taxes to me are like a death plague.”
And besides, what good will all those taxes do for us when the sun engulfs our planet? ||||| CLOSE Libertarian candidate for president Gary Johnson believes that humans aren't being shortsighted by ignoring climate change but are simply taking the "long-term view. USA TODAY
Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson speaks with the USA TODAY editorial board on Sept. 21, 2016, in McLean, VA. (Photo: Andrew P. Scott, USAT)
Libertarian candidate for president Gary Johnson believes that humans aren't being shortsighted by ignoring climate change, but are simply taking the "long-term view."
“In billions of years, the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right? So global warming is in our future,” the former New Mexico governor said during a 2011 National Press Club luncheon event.
In a 2011 clip, surfaced by Mother Jones, Johnson discusses his “long-term view” on climate change and his stance on government spending to combat climate change.
His thoughts: if the world is going to meet a fiery end, why throw money at the problem now?
Johnson notes in the 2011 speech, he does not believe the United States should be involved in cap and trade taxation, and should instead lend "certainty" to the energy fields.
"When you look at the amount of money we are looking to spend on global warming — in the trillions — and look at the result, I just argue that the result is completely inconsequential to the money we would end up spending," he said. "We can direct those moneys to other ways that would be much more beneficial to mankind."
The Libertarian candidate – whose RealClearPolitics polling average is about 9% — has been a popular candidate among millennial voters in the 2016 elections.
According to an August poll by the Pew Research Center, 70% of his supporters are younger than 50.
But Johnson’s views on tackling climate change appear to be in opposition to a large percentage of his supporters, Slate notes.
According to a 2015 public poll by the Institute of Politics at Harvard, three in four Millennials believe that global warming is a fact. And numerous polls show that people want action.
Over the years, Johnson has reiterated that if the government "gets involved" in fighting climate money is essentially being thrown at a problem that will never be solved.
Johnson's campaign website acknowledges the climate is "probably" changing, and that man is "probably" contributing to that change.
"But the critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective – or effective at all," the website notes. "The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations."
Follow @MaryBowerman on Twitter.
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2dpdAfG | Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson draws a lot of his support from millennials, and Mother Jones has dug up a clip from 2011 it thinks might give them pause. In an appearance at the National Press Club lunch that year, Johnson explained his "long-term view" of what's going to happen to Earth, and he argued that spending "trillions" of dollars to try to curb global warming is largely a waste of money—because the planet is going to eventually be decimated anyway. We should "take the long-term view when it comes to global warming," he said. "In billions of years, the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right?" he said. "So global warming is in our future." Johnson concedes on his campaign site that the climate is "probably" changing and that humans "probably" have something to do with it, but he's skeptical about environmental regulation. "The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations … rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda." USA Today cites one survey showing that 75% of millennials believe global warming is a proven fact, suggesting that his reluctance to act on the issue could cost him. (Johnson won't be offering his thoughts on this at Monday's debate.) |
In her newly published collection of personal essays, Not That Kind of Girl, Lena Dunham describes experimenting sexually with her younger sister Grace, whom she says she attempted to persuade to kiss her using “anything a sexual predator might do.” In one particularly unsettling passage, Dunham experimented with her six-year younger sister’s vagina. “This was within the spectrum of things I did,” she writes.
In the collection of nonfiction personal accounts, Dunham describes using her little sister at times essentially as a sexual outlet, bribing her to kiss her for prolonged periods and even masturbating while she is in the bed beside her. But perhaps the most disturbing is an account she proudly gives of an episode that occurred when she was seven and her sister was one. Here’s the full passage (p. 158-9):
“Do we all have uteruses?” I asked my mother when I was seven. “Yes,” she told me. “We’re born with them, and with all our eggs, but they start out very small. And they aren’t ready to make babies until we’re older.” I look at my sister, now a slim, tough one-year-old, and at her tiny belly. I imagined her eggs inside her, like the sack of spider eggs in Charlotte’s Web, and her uterus, the size of a thimble. “Does her vagina look like mine?” “I guess so,” my mother said. “Just smaller.” One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn’t resist and when I saw what was inside I shrieked. My mother came running. “Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!” My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina. This was within the spectrum of things I did. She just got on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been a success.
Dunham describes the book as a “work of nonfiction” in which “some names and identifying details have been changed.” She also states that she considers herself an “unreliable narrator,” which gives her some wiggle room on the truth of her accounts. As National Review's Kevin D. Williamson notes, this passage is “especially suspicious.” The one-year old Grace’s "prank" is supposedly done with the expectation of her older sister “poking around in her genitals. … There is no non-horrific interpretation of this episode.”
Update
After Lena Dunham went on a self-described “rage spiral” in response to this article, which she called “f*cking upsetting and disgusting,” her lawyer sent a cease and desist letter to TruthRevolt threatening to sue us for “millions of dollars” if we did not pull the piece and post a retraction stating that this story was “false.” TruthRevolt refused.
Monday, TruthRevolt editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro posted a response to the cease and desist letter, which includes more of the passages from her book upon which our assessment was based and argues that “quoting a woman’s book does not constitute a ‘false’ story”:
Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book – and the First Amendment covers a good deal of material she may not like.
Dunham announced Monday that she canceled book tour events in Berlin and Belgium. Tuesday, she issued a public apology via Time in which she said she wanted to be "very clear that I do not condone any kind of abuse under any circumstance" and apologized for passages and language in her book that might have "been painful or triggering" for readers:
If the situations described in my book have been painful or triggering for people to read, I am sorry, as that was never my intention. I am also aware that the comic use of the term “sexual predator” was insensitive, and I’m sorry for that as well.
Grace Dunham also responded to the controversy via Twitter on Monday, stating:
As a queer person: i'm committed to people narrating their own experiences, determining for themselves what has and has not been harmful / heteronormativity deems certain behaviours harmful, and others "normal"; the state and media are always invested in maintaining that / 2day, like every other day, is a good day to think about how we police the sexualities of young women, queer, and trans people
Update II
Lena Dunham commented again on this article while speaking on Bill Simmons’ podcast show “The B.S. Report” on Jan 1, 2015, suggesting that TruthRevolt had manufactured the story and published it for political purposes “the day after I launched a Planned Parenthood campaign and the day before the midterm elections.” She said, however, that she did not care “what conservative white men" think about her:
I don’t care what conservative white men think about me. But I do care if anything I write is painful for survivors of sexual abuse, if anything I write is painful for other feminists.
Though she admitted she regretted describing herself as pursuing her sister like a “sexual predator,” she insisted that she and her sister had been raised with “very healthy” sexual boundaries and said it was“painful to be accused of being things that I know I’m not, and to sort of have what I thought was a very natural childhood experience and curiosity vilified.”
Image source. ||||| Lena Dunham has cancelled two dates of her European book tour following recent allegations that she "molested" her younger sister.
The author tweeted to confirm she was cancelling two events in Berlin and Belgium as part of her book tour to promote her memoir Not That Kind of Girl.
Dunham’s decision to cancel the dates follows her furious reaction after a right-wing website in the US claimed she “sexually abused” her younger sister.
The article published on the blog Truth Revolt cites a passage from Dunham’s memoir in which she talks about seeing her younger sister’s vagina at the age of seven.
German readers: I am deeply sorry to miss tomorrow's event in Berlin. I am so grateful for your energy and support. Mit viele liebe. — Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) November 3, 2014
To my Belgian readers, so very sorry to miss the Antwerp Book Fair today but I can't wait to come back and eat fries with you. Much love. — Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) November 2, 2014
It claims the Girls creator describes using her sister to sexually experiment with, writing that she attempted to persuade her to kiss her using the sort of methods “a sexual predator might do”. Dunham posted a series of angry tweets addressing the allegations made in the article.
And by the way, if you were a little kid and never looked at another little kid's vagina, well, congrats to you. — Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) November 1, 2014
Usually this is stuff I can ignore but don't demean sufferers, don't twist my words, back the fuck up bros. — Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) November 1, 2014
I told a story about being a weird 7 year old. I bet you have some too, old men, that I'd rather not hear. And yes, this is a rage spiral. — Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) November 1, 2014
“The right wing news story that I molested my little sister isn’t just LOL – it’s really f*cking upsetting and disgusting”, she wrote.
Lena Dunham and her family of artists
7 show all Lena Dunham and her family of artists
1/7 Lena Dunham and her family of artists 'Shoot the Messenger' (1998-99) by Carroll Dunham Carroll Dunham
2/7 Lena Dunham and her family of artists Grace Dunham in Lena Dunham's 'Tiny Furniture' (2010) Lena Dunham
3/7 Lena Dunham and her family of artists 'Next Bathers, one' (2012) by Carroll Dunham Carroll Dunham
4/7 Lena Dunham and her family of artists 'How We See/Look 1/Daria' (2014) by Laurie Simmons (Salon 94) Laurie Simmons, courtesy Salon 94
5/7 Lena Dunham and her family of artists 'Untitled (Woman's Head)' (1976) by Laurie Simmons (Salon 94) Laurie Simmons, courtesy Salon 94
6/7 Lena Dunham and her family of artists From left: Laurie Simmons, Carroll 'Tip' Dunham and their daughter Lena Dunham (Aaron P/eroteme) Aaron P/eroteme
7/7 Girls Lena Dunham in HBO's 'Girls' HBO
A representative for Dunham has yet to confirm whether the author has plans to cancel any more dates on the European leg of her tour. ||||| 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 ||||| Add a location to your Tweets
When you tweet with a location, Twitter stores that location. You can switch location on/off before each Tweet and always have the option to delete your location history. Learn more ||||| Lena Dunham is fond of lists. Here is a list of things in Lena Dunham’s life that do not strike Lena Dunham as being unusual: growing up in a $6.25 million Tribeca apartment; attending a selection of elite private schools; renting a home in Hollywood Hills well before having anything quite resembling a job and complaining that the home is insufficiently “chic”; the habitual education of the men in her family at Andover; the services of a string of foreign nannies; being referred to a homework therapist when she refused to do her homework and being referred to a relationship therapist when she fought with her mother; constant visits to homeopathic doctors, and visits to child psychologists three times a week; having a summer home on a lake in Connecticut, and complaining about it; writing a “voice of her generation” memoir in which ordinary life events among members of her generation, such as making student-loan payments or worrying about the rent or health insurance, never come up; making casual trips to Malibu; her grandparents’ having taken seven-week trips to Europe during her mother’s childhood; spending a summer at a camp at which the costs can total almost as much as the median American family’s annual rent; being histrionically miserable at said camp and demanding to be brought home early; demanding to be sent back to the same expensive camp the next year.
“I think I may be the voice of my generation.” So says Lena Dunham in the role of her alter ego, Hannah Horvath, in the first episode of Girls, the HBO series she has been writing and starring in since 2012. The scene is classic Dunham, if we can use “classic” to describe a phenomenon of such recent vintage. The basic sentiment is there in plain English, but it must be qualified, run through the irony dicer until it is practically a Cubist representation of the original, and held at a comfortable distance. Dunham very clearly does want to be considered the voice of her generation, as her recently published memoir — Not That Kind of Girl: A Young Woman Tells You What She’s “Learned” — makes unmistakably clear; in fact, she has been hailed as precisely that by Time, Glamour, Today, and others. But she cannot say that herself — not with a straight face, not in Brooklyn. Instead, the line is assigned to her alter ego, who is at the time of the utterance high as a Georgia pine on opium tea and trying to convince her parents to keep supporting her financially. Having delivered the line, Hannah retreats into uncomfortable self-awareness, adding: “Or a voice of a generation.” As a literary stratagem — laying down a marker in the popular culture without making herself vulnerable to accusations that she might be taking herself too seriously — the maneuver is transparent. It is far more troubling that she uses the same technique in real life, for matters much more serious than the plot of Girls: Specifically, she uses it in her memoir to accuse a man of rape without having to take responsibility for the accusation.
In that sense, Lena Dunham may truly be the voice of her generation: The enormous affluence and indulgence of her upbringing did not sate her sundry hungers — for adoration, for intellectual respect that she has not earned, for the unsurpassable delight of moral preening — but instead amplified and intensified her sense of entitlement. The Brooklyn of Girls is nothing more or less than a 21st-century version of the Malibu Barbie Dreamhouse, with New York City taxis standing in for the pink Corvette. Writers naturally indulge their own autobiographical and social fantasies, from Brideshead Revisited to The Lord of the Rings, but Girls represents a phenomenon distinctly of our time: the fantasy not worth having.
Dunham is not satisfied with the manipulation of fantasy alone: She seeks to curate, narrate, and direct the real world as though it were an episode of her television show. The worrisome thing is that she is not alone in her apparent inability to tell the representation from the thing being represented. Hers is an endlessly mediated generation, for whose members life is increasingly lived as a performance on the stages of Instagram and Twitter.
Still, to dismiss Lena Dunham as an insulated and spoiled child of Manhattan’s ruling class is to misunderstand her story entirely. If there is such a thing as actually abusing a child through excessive generosity and overindulgence, then Lena Dunham’s parents are child abusers. Her father, Carroll Dunham, is a painter noted for his primitive brand of highbrow pornography, his canvases anchored by puffy neon-pink labia; her photographer mother filled the family home with nude pictures of herself, “legs spread defiantly.” Self-styled radicals from old money, they were not the sort of people inclined to enforce even the most lax of boundaries. And they were, in their daughter’s telling, enablers of some very disturbing behavior that would be considered child abuse in many jurisdictions — Lena Dunham’s sexual abuse, specifically, of her younger sister, Grace, the sort of thing that gets children taken away from non-millionaire families without Andover pedigrees and Manhattanite social connections. Dunham writes of casually masturbating while in bed next to her younger sister, of bribing her with “three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds . . . anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.” At one point, when her sister is a toddler, Lena Dunham pries open her vagina — “my curiosity got the best of me,” she offers, as though that were an explanation. “This was within the spectrum of things I did.”
Dunham describes herself as an “unreliable narrator,” which in the context of a memoir or another work of purported nonfiction means “liar,” strictly construed. Dunham writes of incorporating stories from other people’s lives and telling them as though they were her own, and of fabricating details. The episode with her sister’s vaginal pebbles seems to be especially suspicious. When Dunham inspects her sister’s business, she shrieks at what she sees: “Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. . . . Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been such a success.” Dunham’s writing often is unclear (willfully so, it seems), but the context here — Grace has overheard her older sister asking whether her baby sister has a uterus — and Grace’s satisfaction with her prank suggest that Grace was expecting her older sister to go poking around in her genitals and inserted the pebbles in expectation of it. Grace is around one year old at the time of these events. There is no non-horrific interpretation of this episode. As for stroking her mother’s vagina, having mistaken it for her hairless cat . . .
That Dunham’s parents tolerated this is completely in character with the portrait of them she offers. Experiencing some very common problems with the childhood fear of going to bed alone, young Lena invades her parents’ bedroom every morning at 1 a.m., evicting her father from the bed, “probably my way of making sure my parents didn’t ever have sex again.” Her father eventually reaches a strange and broken-down compromise with her: She goes to bed at 9 p.m., and he wakes every morning at 3 a.m. to carry her into his bedroom. These shenanigans went on for twelve years. Getting up in the middle of the night for a newborn is one thing; getting up in the middle of the night, every night, for an adolescent is a different class of thing.
If her family failed her, Dunham’s schools, which she seems to have attended largely in pajamas, did no better, crippling her through coddling and leaving her a graduate of a writing program at a very prestigious college who does not know the use of the subjunctive or the difference between “nauseous” and “nauseated,” though the crudeness of her memoir’s prose, in contrast with the deft writing of her television series, may very well be yet another affectation. The crudeness of her thought is inarguably genuine: In the midst of a rather detailed revenge fantasy, and having confessed the pain she feels when good things happen to those she despises, she writes airily that she is above being “jealous” (she means “envious”) and too fine ever to be “vengeful” — five pages after contemplating a future course of action that she herself describes as “vengeful.”
What she lacks in literary and intellectual sophistication she makes up for in overconfidence. She sneers that Oberlin is full of people engaged in “politically correct posturing without real politics” and relates a surprising number of anecdotes from Palestinian fundraisers. At the same time, she confesses to having no significant knowledge of economics or history, and both her book and her television show — to say nothing of her political advertisements — demonstrate a flat, bland incuriosity about the wider world. What her “real politics” are composed of is therefore mysterious. Early in Not That Kind of Girl, she devotes a fair amount of copy to her main hobby — shopping. That the shopping in question happens in thrift stores rather than at Bergdorf’s, and that she attempts to distill some sort of poetic meaning out of the ironic display of the detritus of the lives of others, serves only to underline the banality of her pursuits and the vanity with which she conducts them. She cannot be just another rich girl who whiles away the time shopping — her shopping must have cultural significance.
“I’m going to write an essay about you someday — and not change your name.” So says Hannah to her handsy employer in Girls after a very odd episode in which he sexually harasses her and she ups the ante by trying to seduce him, endures his rejection, threatens to sue him, and then attempts to blackmail him.
Lena Dunham never actually writes that she was raped by a mustachioed campus Republican named Barry at Oberlin College. She leads up to it with a long story about her childhood misuse of the word “rape” — she accuses her little sister of raping her and tells people that her father sticks a fork in her vagina when she misbehaves — and dwells on her lifelong fear of being raped. She describes two different versions of the same sexual encounter, in the latter version insisting that she did not consent to what happened. And in a remarkably dishonest turn, she has other people describe the event as “rape,” thereby dodging any intellectual or moral responsibility for making the claim herself.
It takes me about two minutes to discover a Republican named Barry whose time at Oberlin coincided with Dunham’s. A few minutes later, I know a great deal about him: Where he works, where he lives, what he majored in, his high-school-prom plans, people we know in common, and other surprising intersections between our lives. When I call him at his office, I get the distinct impression that I am not the first reporter to have done so. “I don’t have anything to say about what I know you’re calling about,” he says. We speak very briefly, and he is concerned that I will use his name. It’s a strange thing to be concerned about — his name is out there, easily found. Oberlin opened an investigation into the incident after the publication of Dunham’s book and has consulted with the local police department. The statute of limitations for rape in Ohio is 20 years, and Dunham graduated in 2008.
In Dunham’s telling, she had been at a party, drinking and taking Xanax and cocaine, and went to bed willingly with Barry. But the encounter turned rough — so rough, she says, that she required medical attention — and she noticed mid-coitus that he was not using a condom. She told him to leave; he left. She relates an encounter between the same Barry and another woman that turned so violent that it left the walls spattered in blood, “like a crime scene.” But neither Dunham nor the other woman felt the need to press charges, file a complaint, or otherwise document the encounter. The latter woman, in fact, reports that Barry accompanied her to the campus clinic the next day for morning-after pills, joking about naming the baby they weren’t going to have. If any of this is true, then there are medical records at Oberlin supporting the story, but the release of Dunham’s records would require Dunham’s consent, and the second woman’s records would require the consent of the second woman, if she exists.
Dunham’s writing all this is, needless to say, a gutless and passive-aggressive act. Barry is not a character in a book; he is a real person, one whose life is no doubt being turned upside down by a New York Times No. 1 best-seller containing half-articulated accusations that he raped a woman in college, accusations that are easily connected to him. Dunham won’t call him a rapist, but she is happy to use other people as sock puppets to call him a rapist. She doesn’t use his full name, but she surely knows how easily it can be found. She wouldn’t face him in a court of law, but she’ll lynch him in print.
A great deal has been made of Lena Dunham’s weight, not least by Lena Dunham. She may be Hollywood fat, or Manhattan–below–125th Street fat, but she is in fact an utterly ordinary specimen of American womanhood, and she would not be thought of as fat in Magnolia, Ark., or Craig, Colo., or even in the less rarefied sections of Brooklyn. She does use her weight as a kind of aesthetic cudgel — the first image we get of Hannah in Girls is of her shoveling pasta into her face while her mother scolds her, telling her to slow down.
Oddly, she herself is a pitiless enforcer of physical standards when it comes to men, complaining endlessly that her suitors are not sufficiently tall, that men who are “petite” and “minuscule” are “my lot in life.” She sneers at “girls with boyfriends who looked like lesbians,” at a man guilty of “dressing vaguely like a middle-aged lesbian,” etc. “Lesbian” is Dunham’s shorthand for “awful.” On Girls, one of the characters scoffs that “dates are for lesbians,” and Dunham describes a childhood fear that she would become “the militant lesbian leader of a motorcycle gang,” but she also describes herself as “being in possession of a gay sister,” which fact she wields like a get-out-of-women’s-prison-free card against accusations of homophobia, which wielding is occasionally necessitated by the fact that her views on sex, relationships, and sexual roles are, for all of her feminist grandstanding, utterly conventional.
“I think he thinks he was being really deep by dating a chubby girl,” she writes of one of her many romantic disappointments. But the excess of self from which she suffers most genuinely is not corporal but emotional. Emotionally, she is morbidly obese, the layers of her bloated sense of self deepening like Philip Larkin’s coastal shelf since her birth, if not in fact before, considering the daft contributions of her family. It is an easy thing to mock, and it deserves mocking, but it also deserves understanding.
She did not get this way by accident; she got this way because the series of economic and intellectual cloisters in which she has lived her life have functioned as the emotional equivalent of Song-dynasty foot-binding: Intended to bring her nearer to perfection, they have instead left her disfigured and disabled. Her ambition is palpable, but fashion dictates that she forswear ambition: She describes her memoir as her answer to Helen Gurley Brown’s Having It All: Love, Success, Sex, Money Even if You’re Starting with Nothing, which of course Dunham purchased ironically from the inevitable “dusty shelf” of a hipster-haunted thrift shop, where it sat next to a copy of Miss Piggy’s autobiography. But Helen Gurley Brown of Green Forest, Ark., who lost her father at ten to an elevator accident and a sister to polio a few years later, did in fact start with something close to nothing, and laboriously rose to a position of cultural prominence (from which she inflicted a tremendous amount of damage). The self-made Helen Gurley Brown, another voice of a generation of women, was in many ways the genuine version of what Lena Dunham pretends to be — at least, the woman she pretends to be on television. Brown emerged from her chrysalis at the age of 40; Dunham is busily building an ever-thicker cocoon of fantasy, prescription drugs, and weaponized celebrity, manipulating reality to her own specifications. If she is emblematic of her generation, it is in that her life, in her own telling, is a reminder that being ruined by comfort and privilege is as easy as (perhaps easier than) being crippled by privation and abuse.
— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent for National Review. This article originally appeared in the November 3, 2014 issue of National Review. | Lena Dunham is not happy that two conservative writers have accused her of molesting her younger sister. The bizarre story starts with Dunham's new book; in it, the Girls creator recalls being a child, curious whether her baby sister's vagina looked like hers, so she investigated. (Click to read the passage.) She also writes about paying sister Grace if she'd let Lena kiss her on the mouth, E! reports. In the National Review, Kevin D. Williamson refers to Dunham's "sexual abuse" of her sister, while on the conservative blog Truth Revolt, Bradford Thomas does the same. Dunham responded over the weekend on Twitter; the Independent notes that she also canceled two European book tour dates, though it's not clear why. "The right wing news story that I molested my little sister isn't just LOL- it's really f---ing upsetting and disgusting," Dunham tweeted. "And by the way, if you were a little kid and never looked at another little kid's vagina, well, congrats to you. Usually this is stuff I can ignore but don't demean sufferers, don't twist my words ... I told a story about being a weird 7 year old. I bet you have some too, old men, that I'd rather not hear. And yes, this is a rage spiral. Sometimes I get so mad I burn right up. Also I wish my sister wasn't laughing so hard." Some on Twitter argued with Dunham, E! notes: "You consider molestation endearing instead of abhorrent," wrote one. |
California has approved a statewide ban on direct-to-consumer sales of certain animal poisons that are killing mountain lions, hawks, foxes, owls, and pacific fishers. These so-called "anticoagulant rodenticides" are popular in residential neighborhoods, on farms, and on trespass pot grows — where criminals use them to poison wildlife that nibbles the plant.
Brad Henderson - CA DFW
Yum: d-Con spread around the base of a pot plant
On Tuesday, the state prohibited certain products made by d-Con, advocacy group Earth Justice reports. The ban takes effects July 1. But there are still plenty of loopholes for people to get their hands on these super-toxic “second-generation” poisons, which turn animals’ insides to jelly. They will still be available for widespread use by licensed commercial and agricultural pest-control operators.
“California has taken an important step to reduce the senseless poisoning of wildlife,” stated Jonathan Evans, toxics and endangered species campaign director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “But there’s no need to leave the ‘worst of the worst’ poisons on the market, because safe, cost-effective options are readily available that don’t indiscriminately kill wildlife.”
The ban means one less source for d-Con for pot farmers who are subject to zero regulations over the use of pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides, and other toxic chemicals. The federal government considers all marijuana activity illegal, and has blocked local efforts to regulate it. The ongoing disaster of wildlands fouled by illicit drug farmers has created a groundswell of support for legalizing, taxing, and regulating pot for the first time. ||||| Looking for news you can trust?
Subscribe to our free newsletters.
Starting about 90 miles northwest of Sacramento, an unbroken swath of national forestland follows the spine of California’s rugged coastal mountains all the way to the Oregon border. Near the center of this vast wilderness, along the grassy banks of the Trinity River’s south fork, lies the remote enclave of Hyampom (pop. 241), where, on a crisp November morning, I climb into a four-wheel-drive government pickup and bounce up a dirt logging road deep into the Six Rivers National Forest. I’ve come to visit what’s known in cannabis country as a “trespass grow.”
“This one probably has the most plants I’ve seen,” says my driver, a young Forest Service cop who spends his summers lugging an AR-15 through the backcountry of the Emerald Triangle—the triad of Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity counties that is to pot what the Central Valley is to almonds and tomatoes. Fearing retaliation from growers, the officer asks that I not use his name. Back in August he was hiking through the bush, trying to locate the grow from an aerial photo, when he surprised a guy carrying an iPod, gardening tools, and a 9 mm pistol on his hip. He arrested the man and alerted his tactical team, which found about 5,500 plants growing nearby, with a potential street yield approaching $16 million.
“This is unicorns and rainbows, isn’t it?” says wildlife ecologist Mourad Gabriel as he stuffs a garbage bag with trash the growers left behind.
Today, a work crew is hauling away the detritus by helicopter. Our little group, which includes a second federal officer and a Forest Service flack, hikes down an old skid trail lined with mossy oaks and madrones, passing the scat of a mountain lion, and a few minutes later, fresh black bear droppings. We follow what looks like a game trail to the lip of a wooded slope, a site known as Bear Camp. There, amid a scattering of garbage bags disemboweled by animals, we find the growers’ tarps and eight dingy sleeping bags, the propane grill where they had cooked oatmeal for breakfast, and the backpack sprayers they used to douse the surrounding 50 acres with chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The air smells faintly of ammonia and weed. “This is unicorns and rainbows, isn’t it?” says Mourad Gabriel, a former University of California-Davis wildlife ecologist who has joined us at the site, as he maniacally stuffs a garbage bag with empty booze bottles, Vienna Beef sausage tins, and Miracle-Gro refill packs.
According to federal stats, trespass grows in California alone account for more than one-third of the cannabis seized nationwide by law enforcement, which means they could well be the largest single source of domestically grown marijuana. Of course, nobody can say precisely how much pot comes from indoor grows and private plots that are less accessible to the authorities. What’s clear is that California’s marijuana harvest is vast—”likely the largest value crop (by far) in the state’s lineup,” notes the Field Guide to California Agriculture. Assuming, as the guide does, that the authorities seize about 10 percent of the harvest, that means they would have left behind more than 10 million outdoor plants last year, enough to yield about $31 billion worth of product. That’s more than the combined value of the state’s top 10 legal farm commodities.
“It simply isn’t regulated, and the upshot is that nobody really knows what’s in their cannabis.”
Even before voters in Colorado and Washington legalized recreational pot in 2012, marijuana was quasi-legal in California, and not just for medical use. Senate Bill 1449, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010, reclassified possession of an ounce or less from a misdemeanor to a maximum $100 infraction—you’ll get a bigger fine for jaywalking in Los Angeles. Indeed, many states have eased restrictions on pot use. But with the exception of Colorado and Washington, whose laws dictate where, how, and by whom marijuana may be grown, they have had little to say about the manner in which it is cultivated—which is challenging to dictate in any case, since growers who cooperate with state regulators could still be prosecuted under federal statutes that classify pot as a Schedule 1 drug, the legal equivalent of LSD and heroin. So where is all this legal and semilegal weed supposed to come from? The answer, increasingly, is an unregulated backwoods economy, the scale of which makes Prohibition-era moonshining look quaint.
To meet demand, researchers say, the acreage dedicated to marijuana grows in the Emerald Triangle has doubled in the past five years. Like the Gold Rush of the mid-1800s, this “green rush,” as it is known locally, has brought great wealth at a great cost to the environment. Whether grown in bunkers lit with pollution-spewing diesel generators, or doused with restricted pesticides and sown on muddy, deforested slopes that choke off salmon streams during the rainy season, this “pollution pot” isn’t exactly high quality, or even a quality high. “The cannabis industry right now is in sort of the same position that the meatpacking industry was in before The Jungle was written by Upton Sinclair,” says Stephen DeAngelo, the founder of Oakland’s Harborside Health Center, a large medical marijuana dispensary. “It simply isn’t regulated, and the upshot is that nobody really knows what’s in their cannabis.”
It’s not just stoners who are at risk. Trespass grows have turned up everywhere from a stand of cottonwoods in Death Valley National Park to a clearing amid the pines in Yosemite. “I now have to spend 100 percent of my time working on the environmental impacts of marijuana,” says Gabriel, who showed up at Bear Camp in military-style cargo pants and a kaffiyeh scarf. “I would never have envisioned that.”
Gabriel grew up in Fresno, the son of immigrants from Mexico and Iraq, at a time when the Central Valley city was plagued by turf wars among pot-dealing street gangs, notably the local Norteños chapter and their rivals, the Bulldogs. That world did not interest Gabriel, who spent a lot of his free time catching frogs and crawdads on the banks of the San Joaquin River. His love of the outdoors led him to study wildlife management at Humboldt State University, where he became fascinated with fishers, the only predators besides mountain lions clever and tough enough to prey on porcupines. The fisher, which resembles the love child of a ferret and a wolverine, was nearly eradicated from the West by logging and trapping during the early 20th century. It still hasn’t rebounded. This year, the US Fish and Wildlife Service will consider listing it as a threatened species.
On local blogs, people have threatened Gabriel and his family. In February, one of his dogs was fatally poisoned.
When Gabriel first began venturing into the woods to trap and radio-collar fishers, he assumed that most of them were dying from bobcat attacks, disease, and cars running them over. But then, in 2009, he discovered a dead fisher deep in the Sierra National Forest that showed no signs of any of those things. A toxicology test indicated that it had ingested large quantities of rat poison.
Back in his lab, he tested frozen tissue from 58 other fisher carcasses he’d collected on some of California’s most remote public lands and found rodenticide traces in nearly 80 percent of them. Rat poison isn’t used in national forests by anyone except marijuana cultivators, who put it out to protect their seedlings. Rodents that eat the poison stumble around for a few days before they die, making them easy prey for hungry fishers.
In 2012, after Gabriel published his rat poison results, he was the target of angry calls and messages. One person accused him of helping the feds “greenwash the war on drugs.” Another made vague threats against his family and his dogs. Gabriel also received a prying email, later traced by federal agents to Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, soliciting the locations of his home, office, and field study sites. In Lost Coast Outpost and other local news sites, commenters shared links to his home address. “Snitches end up in ditches,” one warned.
Then, last month, Gabriel’s Labrador retriever, Nyxo, died after someone fed him meat infused with De-Con rat bait.
The types of threats Gabriel has received are not uncommon, and they have frightened scientists away from studying the environmental impacts of pot farming. “At my university, there is nobody who will even go near it,” says Anthony Silvaggio, a sociologist with the state university’s Humboldt Institute for Interdisciplinary Marijuana Research. Biologists who used to venture into the wilderness alone to survey wildlife now often pair up for protection. In July 2011, armed growers in the Sequoia National Forest chased a federal biologist through the woods for a half-hour before giving up. The following year, researchers surveying northern spotted owls on Humboldt County’s Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation were shot at with high-caliber rifles. Each growing season, a significant chunk of one designated fisher habitat in the Sierra National Forest becomes inaccessible to scientists because it’s dangerously close to illegal gardens.
Gabriel won’t go near a known grow site before it’s been cleared by law enforcement, as Bear Camp has. Scattered across the hillside, his team finds 4,200 pounds of chemical fertilizer, five kinds of insecticide, and three kinds of rodenticide. The stash includes a restricted pesticide capable of killing humans in small doses. Gabriel’s friend and colleague Mark Higley dons a gas mask and seals the canister in a garbage bag. “If it does erupt, I want everyone to be at least 20 to 30 feet away,” Gabriel warns. “It’s aluminum phosphide, and when it hits the air, it turns into phosphine gas.” Breathing it can kill you.
The Emerald Triangle’s pot culture has changed a lot since the hippies drove up from San Francisco in the early 1970s in search of peace, freedom, and blissful communion with nature. At first, the back-to-the-landers grew pot primarily for themselves, but news that the United States was paying to have Mexican pot farms sprayed with paraquat, a toxic weed killer, convinced American stoners to seek out the hippie weed.
Before long, Humboldt had become a name brand, but marijuana might never have come to define the Emerald Triangle had the old-growth timber industry not logged itself out of business by the mid-1990s. In 1996, when California became the first state to legalize pot for medical use, out-of-work loggers took advantage of the opportunity. “Then you had everybody like, ‘Sure, I’ll grow some weed,'” recalls Humboldt State’s Silvaggio. The size of the harvest grew, helped along by post-9/11 border enforcement, which made it harder for Mexican pot to enter the country. The latest leap in production was the result of Prop. 19, California’s 2010 legalization measure; although it lost narrowly at the polls, the Emerald Triangle’s growers boosted output in anticipation of having a mainstream product. Now marijuana “is all we have,” Silvaggio says. “Every other thing is built here to serve that economy.”
Drive around the Emerald Triangle during harvest season with the radio on, and you’ll hear ads openly pitching Dutch hydroponic lamps, machines “for trimming flowers,” and 2,800-gallon water storage tanks—because “you don’t want to be the one that has to call the water truck in for multiple water deliveries late in the season.” Even mainstream businesses like furniture stores get in on the green rush with “harvest sales.” Talk of bud-trimming parties and the going price per pound dominates restaurant conversations. And in backwoods hamlets where you’d expect high unemployment, you come across a lot of $50,000 pickups.
With prices dropping as domestic supply expands, “you’ve got to go bigger these days to make the amount of money you used to make.”
As with much of the state’s agricultural industry, the pot trade is stratified, and much of the labor is done by undocumented farmworkers. The man arrested at Bear Camp confessed to the police that he’d traveled north from Michoacán, Mexico, to pick apples in Washington, but knew he could make more money tending pot in California. Industry observers believe that at least some of the trespass grows are run from south of the border, but Silvaggio adds that many are financed by locals. Either way, the grunt workers tend to be the only ones busted when the grows are raided.
Although the original Northern California growers saw pot cultivation as an extension of their hippie lifestyles, their environmental values haven’t readily carried over to the next generation. “They are given a free pass to become wealthy at a young age, to get what they want,” Silvaggio explains. “And do you think they are going to give it up when they turn 20, with a kid in the box? They can’t get off that gravy train.” But with prices dropping as domestic supply expands, “you can’t go smaller; you’ve got to go bigger these days to make the amount of money you used to make. So what does that mean? You have to get another generator. You have to take more water. You’ve got to spray something because you may lose 20, 30 grand if you don’t.”
Smaller growers operating on their own properties tend to use slightly better environmental practices— avoiding rodenticides, for instance—than the industrial growers who have moved in solely to make money. Even so, Silvaggio says, “we found that it’s just a tiny fraction of folks who are growing organic.”
Among the downsides of the green rush is the strain it puts on water resources in a drought-plagued region. Scott Bauer, a biologist with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, calculates that irrigation for cannabis farms has sucked up all of the water that would ordinarily keep local salmon streams running through the dry season. Marijuana cultivation, he believes, “is a big reason why” at least 24 salmon and steelhead streams stopped flowing last summer. “I would consider it probably the No. 1 threat” to salmon in the area, he told me. “We are spending millions of dollars on restoring streams. We are investing all this money in removing roads and trying to contain sediment and fixing fish path barriers, but without water there’s no fish.”
At Bear Camp, Gabriel leads me to a steep slope where the growers have plugged a freshwater spring with a makeshift dam of logs and tarps, one of 17 water diversions found at the site. Where moisture-loving ferns and horsetails should be flourishing, a plastic pipe leads downhill to a 1,000-gallon reservoir feeding a vast irrigation network. Gabriel unkinks a hose to release an arc of water from a sprinkler. National Guard troops enlisted to help out have already yanked the cannabis plants here, leaving behind a hillside of girdled white oaks and bare soil. “When we have a two-to-four-inch rain, this will just be a mud river,” Gabriel says. Sediment laced with pesticides and other chemicals will find its way into the salmon stream below. We hike down to a clearing where a helicopter is pulling out sling loads of irrigation piping. “Look at this!” Gabriel shouts after plunging into a thicket to help the soldiers rip out another dam. “Insect killer right in the middle of it!”
He and his colleagues have seen much worse. At a grow site in July, he found a fisher that had died from eating one of many poisoned hot dogs strung around the site on a trotline. A state game warden raiding a grow in 2011 discovered a black bear and her cubs convulsing on the ground, having eaten into a stash of pesticides. Two threatened northern spotted owls, the species once at the center of a bitter fight between loggers and environmentalists, tested positive for rodenticides in Gabriel’s lab; he’s now looking into whether toxins from grow sites could be impeding that species’ recovery as well. “When there is no adequate regulatory framework,” Silvaggio warns, “you are going to have nature taking a hit.”
Most growers just want to be left alone, but the small minority who are politically outspoken tend to favor regulation. Kristin Nevedal chairs the Emerald Growers Association, the triangle’s marijuana trade group. The coauthor of an ecofriendly pot-farming guide, she often consults with state and local lawmakers about how to make the industry more responsible. “Prohibition hasn’t curbed the desire for cannabis,” she says. “So we really need to look at changing our policy and starting to treat it like agriculture, so we can manage it.”
“The trespass grows are really an issue because of prohibition,” says one enviro. The growers “are just a symptom. The real disease is the failed drug war.”
One of the most serious efforts on that front was a system put in place by Mendocino County, which as of 2010 allowed the cultivation of up to 99 plants, provided growers registered and tagged each one with zip ties purchased from the county. Sheriff’s deputies monitored the grow sites and checked that they complied with environmental laws. “That program was in a lot of ways fabulous,” Nevedal recalls. Almost 100 growers participated, but the program was shut down in early 2012, after federal agents raided one of the grows and US Attorney Melinda Haag hinted that she might just take the county to court. Later that year, a federal grand jury subpoenaed the county’s zip tie records.
Since then, efforts to regulate pot farming have mostly shifted to the state level. In Colorado, pot vendors are required to list on their packaging all the farm chemicals used to produce their products, and the state recently implemented a “seed to sale” tracking system. Most Coloradans grow indoors due to the climate, which reduces pesticide use and makes it easier to keep pot off the black market, but it’s highly energy intensive. In the journal Energy Policy, researcher Evan Mills estimated that indoor grows suck up enough electricity to supply 1.7 million homes—in California, they account for a whopping 9 percent of household energy use. The newly minted regulations for Washington state allow outdoor grows so long as they are well fenced and outfitted with security cameras and an alarm system.
In the next few years, new legalization measures appear destined for the ballot in California, Alaska, and Oregon. But while it may help create a market for responsibly grown cannabis, legalizing pot in a few states won’t wipe out the black market, with its steep environmental toll. There’s simply too much money to be made shipping weed to New Yorkers at $3,600 per pound, and too few cops to find all the grows and rip them out. “The trespass grows are really an issue because of prohibition,” says Gary Hughes, the executive director of the Environmental Protection Information Center, a 37-year-old Emerald Triangle environmental group that cut its teeth fighting the logging industry. “It is not the growers who are a disease. They are just a symptom. The real disease is the failed drug war.”
Yet without the drug war, the region’s pot sector might fade into oblivion. Take away the threat of federal raids, and to some extent pot becomes just another row crop, grown en masse wherever it’s cheapest. “A shift in cultivation to the Central Valley is definitely possible,” Hughes acknowledges.
There will likely still be a niche for the Emerald Triangle growers who started it all, Nevedal believes, just as there has been for craft whiskey distilleries in post-Prohibition Kentucky. Growing really good weed is simply too much work and too much strain on the environment to make sense on an industrial scale. As it happens, Nevedal speculates, the Emerald Triangle might just end up where it started, providing artisanal dank for a high-end market. “The future,” she says, “is the small family farm.” | Think pot growers are kind, environmentally-minded hippies? Not in the so-called Emerald Triangle, a weed-farming region of California where illegal growers are spewing pollution, poisoning wildlife, and scaring scientists away from probing the environmental effects of pot-growing, Mother Jones reports. One wildlife ecologist received threats against his family, and researchers in the field have been shot at with high-caliber rifles. "At my university, there is nobody who will even go near" the issue, said a sociologist at Humboldt State University. Cops have conducted raids, but only bust the undocumented farm workers who work there. The Emerald Triangle, a tri-county area in the Central Valley, was once hippie heaven. But when California legalized pot for medicinal use in 1996, out-of-work loggers went into pot farming and made millions. Prices dropped as domestic supply grew, so the farms expanded—as did the environmental impact of pesticides and generators, analysts say. Not only that, weed production sucked up massive amounts of water in a drought-plagued region and devastated local salmon populations. Solutions? One environmentalist suggests fully legalizing pot so it can be regulated and grown where it's cheapest: "It is not the growers who are a disease. They are just a symptom. The real disease is the failed drug war." Click for the full article, or see an East Bay Express report on how California has banned a rat poison used on "trespass pot grows." |
The dramatic photo of a young woman getting a blast of pepper spray on her face during a mostly peaceful Occupy protest in Portland is destined to become an enduring image of the national movement.
The youthful protester vomited almost immediately after the Thursday incident and medics were able to wash out her eyes and nose so that she was not much the worse for it, Occupy Portland spokesman Reid Parham told The Times.
"She's OK," he said.
FULL COVERAGE: Occupy protests around the nation
Portland's Occupy the Banks demonstrations began Thursday morning with the arrests of 25 people on the east end of the Steel Bridge.
Interestingly, it was a gray-haired group that sat stubbornly at the entrance to the bridge, waiting to be taken away in flex-cuffs by police. The Portland Police Bureau put out a list of arrestees, and only one of them was under the age of 35. Seven were in their 60s. Five were in their 50s.
It might be that those were the folks who could afford the time to be hauled away, booked and possibly charged; certainly, it reflects Portland's deep history of street protest.
The Occupy Portland demonstrations of the last six weeks are only the latest in a long tradition of turbulent clashes that date back to the city's well-remembered anti-Vietnam War demonstration of 1970, and earlier.
A former member of President George H. W. Bush's staff famously dubbed the city "Little Beirut" in reference to the noisy reception Republican candidates traditionally received there. And street clashes between protesters and police have over the years been a regular event at May Day rallies and union organizing rallies even before Vietnam.
In that context, Thursday's events were relatively mild. Yet Occupy Portland organizers allege law enforcement took an inappropriate and heavy-handed approach.
"The city's overreaction and complete waste of tax dollars to quiet down a completely peaceful demonstration against the greed of banks was very unnecessary," spokeswoman Illona Trogub said in an interview.
Police said pepper spray was only brought out when a small group of unusually confrontational protesters refused to get out of the street and stood in the path of MAX transit trains.
Portland Police Bureau spokesman Lt. Robert King said the march had proceeded peacefully along most of the route, with officers trying to keep people on the sidewalk and out of the street.
There was initially "a pushing and shoving match" near SW 5th Avenue and Alder Street, King said in an interview, and again a "pretty intense confrontation" at SW 4th Avenue and Morrison Street.
The most raucous confrontation occurred near Chase Bank shortly after 4 p.m. as officers were trying to remove protesters who had entered the bank vestibule. But police were blocked by hundreds of demonstrators outside. Meanwhile, a core of protesters couldn't be cleared from the street, which is a path for one of the city's major downtown light-rail systems.
"Two of the protesters engaged in some kind of a struggle, a pushing match, with one of the officers, and in the course of that, tensions escalated and ultimately pepper spray was deployed, and that by and large resolved the disturbance at that location," King said.
Occupy spokesman Parham said one of the problems was that police, many of them on horseback, were actually shoving people into the street. "It's consistently true that the police were over-reacting and pushing people off of the sidewalks into the street, and then yelling at them to get out of the street," he said.
He said two people were stepped on by the horses, and one was knocked over. "All of the eyewitnesses say there was no warning that chemical agents would be used," he added.
King said the police have consistently employed an approach known as "tactical disengagement" during the last several weeks, often backing off and literally retreating from marching protesters "in cases where there could have been a flash point."
"What we encountered yesterday was different in its tone and its character from the previous marches," King said. "We're thinking it's because the people that were there yesterday were there to engage in direct action against financial institutions. This was designed to be an interruption.
"Again, there were hundreds of people, possibly as many as a thousand people, who marched. Many, many people were utterly peaceful," King said. "But there were definitely individuals involved that were more aggressive. Officers definitely encountered higher levels of resistance than they had seen in previous incidents."
The pepper spray deployment is under investigation, he said.
Meanwhile, the photo of the young woman taken by Oregonian staff photographer Randy L. Rasmussen has raced across the Internet, becoming, as the Oregonian described Friday morning, "a web sensation and an iconic photograph."
ALSO:
Tragedy for Oklahoma State
The outcry and response to the Benetton kissing ads
Suspect in Obama assassination attempt was obsessed, officials say
-- Kim Murphy in Seattle
Photo: A woman is blasted with pepper spray during Occupy protests in Portland Thursday. Credit: Randy L. Rasmussen/The Oregonian
Video: Police deploy pepper spray in Portland. Credit: KATU Communities
||||| View full size
The moment came late in the afternoon after I'd spent time with a group of N17 protesters intent on getting arrested by occupying a bank.
After the protesters I was following parked themselves outside a locked Bank of America branch, I grabbed some food, checked in with the office and then tried to find the main protest group again.
Turns out most of them were headed to Pioneer Courthouse Square. Along the way, I heard someone announce that the Chase bank (across the street from the south side of the square) was still open. There, I found protesters spinning around and around in the bank's revolving door. Inside were two Oregonian photographers, so I decided I'd wait outside to see the police response.
Around one corner from the bank were bike officers, waiting for word on how to proceed. But instead of the bike officers addressing the situation, horse-patrol officers came from the opposite corner and waded into the crowd of protesters. The horse patrol cleared a way for foot officers, pushing protesters and media out into the street.
At one point I made eye contact with a horse patrol officer and he drove his horse right at me, forcing me into the street. From somewhere came an announcement that anyone in the street would be arrested, I retreat to higher ground across the street. The action moved east as the police moved people back.
But eventually, I couldn't track the action so I moved to the corner of the square and jumped onto a raised spot where I had a panoramic view of the action. The light was beginning to fade, so I cranked up the ISO on my cameras so I could stop action. The scene was pretty chaotic with police coming in from several directions. The horse patrol continued to push people and so were the riot police. I was shooting pretty much anything that moved.
I heard someone scream that the police were using pepper spray and folks below me started running. As I went to shoot that scene, my long-lens camera died -- dead battery! By the time I got batteries swapped, the action there had pretty well died down, and I'd missed crucial action.
I continued to shoot as riot cops charged the crowd that was in Southwest Sixth Avenue. By the square, an elderly man was brought over below me with a leg injury.
Finally the police retreated and I decided I needed to get my photos back to the office. I handed off my image cards to another photographer who was heading in and went to retrieve a car I parked back near the start of the march.
When I arrived, my pictures were still being copied into our electronic picture desk so I cleaned up my gear and waited. Then photo assignment editor Mike Zacchino called me over. As I walked up, he let out an excited shout. Filling his big screen was this other-worldly picture of a woman getting pepper-sprayed.
Obviously, the police had been spraying before I heard about it and because of the way the camera works, I hadn't seen the pepper spray scene at all before I saw it on Mike's screen!
-- Randy L. Rasmussen
||||| You may need to allow pop up window for this step of registration
Please take a moment to review the available e-mail newsletters has to offer. Place a checkbox next to the newsletters you wish to subscribe to.
Welcome.
Thank you for becoming a member of kgw.com. You now have full access to the best local coverage and late breaking news from kgw.com. Soon you will be redirected to the page you were seeking, and a confirmation email will be delivered to you.
You will need to respond to the confirmation e-mail for your account to be activated.
kgw.com is dedicated to bringing you exceptional news and outstanding information services, all while personalizing it to your liking. We're sure you'll enjoy being a kgw.com member! If you need assistance, please contact us. ||||| It's another one of those images that galvanizes activists, embarrasses police, and makes competing photographers seethe with jealousy, and Portland Oregonian shooter Randy L. Rasmussen didn't even know he had taken it. The photo of a young woman protester getting hit in her open mouth, point-blank, with a torrent of pepper spray as riot cops pushed back protesters in Portland during Thursday's Day of Action has exploded on Twitter, blogs, and trade sites since The Oregonian posted it Thursday evening. But in the confusion and impending darkness on Thursday evening, Rasmussen was shooting blind. He said he didn't see the photo until his editor did, as they went through the day's frames together that night.
Update (5 p.m. EST): The woman in the photo is 20-year-old Elizabeth Nichols, her mother wrote in to say. Check below for more.
With protesters taking over a Chase Bank lobby toward the end of the business day in downtown Portland, Rasmussen said the scene descended into chaos and confusion as mounted police and riot cops descended on them, a line of armored officers pushing the protesters down the street. He jumped on a raised corner of the intersection and began shooting everything around him.
"I was just shooting everything that came to my attention because it was happening in like a 270 degree panorama below me. They had the horses moving into the crowd and I saw people falling down," he said. "This is all happening so fast that I'm not seeing what I'm shooting. It's getting dark so I crank the ISO up on my camera and at that point the camera's seeing more than I am." Someone yelled "oh man, they're pepper spraying," and right then, Rasmussen's camera battery died. "I have another battery and I swap them out, and at that point it's all over."
Rasmussen sent his camera back to the office with a colleague, not knowing what it contained. Later, he said, "I was standing behind one of the photo editors while he was going through my take and he just let out this whoop, and there was that frame of the protester getting hit in the face." They put the image online immediately, and it immediately grabbed the Internet's attention. In its own story about the photo's popularity, The Oregonian touted some of that praise:
The web editor for @yesmagazine, Brooke Jarvis, tweeted overnight: "
So, this will go viral: bit.ly/soelEi #ows"
"Deservedly," replied Clara Jeffery, co-editor of Mother Jones.
Sam Graham-Felsen, a writer and speaker and former chief Obama blogger, was also struck by the image. He tweeted:
"... Should win a Pulitzer IMHO #ows"
"Amazing photo of use of pepper spray," tweeted Jennifer Preston, a New York Times staff writer.
On Friday, Occupy Wall Street's New York Twitter account broadcast a link to the photo and a YouTube video of its aftermath:
So what about the young woman? It seems from the video and this local television interview she's Elmira Rodriguez, a 28-year-old protester who previously told The Oregonian she had been with the encampment since its inception about a month and a half ago. A Facebook profile we found appears to be hers, but without confirmation we're not going to link it. It's light on public information anyway, indicating only that majored in Spanish at Portland State University. In late October, she posted on her wall that she was "loving my new residence and job at Occupy Portland." She told the local Fox affiliate it was Occupy medics who took care of her after the pepper spray dousing. She described the feeling of getting sprayed: "Burning, like your skin is peeling, is the only thing I can explain it as. Very hot, burning." Sounds unpleasant. But it makes for great photography.
Update (5 p.m. EST): As mentioned above, the girl in the photo is not Rodriguez, as we initially thought, but Elizabeth Nichols, a 20-year-old originally from Arkansas who moved to the West Coast about six months ago and made her way from Seattle to Portland a month later. Her mother, Annie Nichols, said after the photo was taken, police threw Elizabeth to the ground and arrested her. Annie, who is housebound with multiple sclerosis, said Elizabeth joined Occupy Wall Street because of her parents' dire situation. "I have no medical care. I'm not eligible. My husband's disabled ... We live on one disability check. No, we don't live. We exist. Lizzie knows this. That's why she's doing this." Elizabeth, whose mug shot is posted at left, wasn't always an activist, Annie said. "She never took part in anything like this. Of course, it's Arkansas. There isn't a lot of that here." The Portland Police Bureau website says Elizabeth was charged with second-degree trespassing.
Photo courtesy The Oregonian.
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at amartin at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
Adam Martin ||||| View full size
The web is flooded with images and news of tense moments between Portland police and N17 protesters on Thursday but perhaps none is getting more attention this morning than one of a Portland police officer firing pepper spray directly into one woman's face.
The image, captured by veteran Oregonian staff photographer, Randy L. Rasmussen, has, as they say, become a web sensation and an iconic photograph from Thursday's sprawling, yet largely peaceful, street demonstration.
The startling image went out Thursday afternoon on The Oregonian's Twitter account -- @Oregonian -- and was immediately retweeted.
The web editor for @yesmagazine Brooke Jarvis , tweeted overnight: "
So, this will go viral: bit.ly/soelEi #ows"
"Deservedly," replied Clara Jeffery, co-editor of Mother Jones.
Sam Graham-Felsen, a writer and speaker and former chief Obama blogger, was also struck by the image. He tweeted:
"... Should win a Pulitzer IMHO #ows"
"Amazing photo of use of pepper spray," tweeted Jennifer Preston, a New York Times staff writer. Preston asked Alexandra Manzano, The Oregonian's social media coordinator, if the image was been Photoshopped. It was not, Manzano replied. The Oregonian does not digitally alter images.
On Twitter this morning, Thursday's N17 protests remain popular topics in Portland.
Many thousands of readers have viewed the image on both The Oregonian and Manzano's Posterous accounts, hundreds have posted the image on their Facebook pages and dozens have left comments on Oregonlive so far this morning.
The Oregonian's image seems destined to join this shocking Seattle PI photo of an elderly woman in Seattle who was pepper-sprayed by police during an Occupy protest earlier this week. On Thursday, Publicola, a Seattle news and culture website, summed up the overwhelming response to photographer Joshua Trujillo's image this way:
The Washington Post calls the photo a “haunting, cinematic image of brutality, emphasized even more by the chiaroscuro of dark gloved hands holding her head up to lead her to safety,” and says that of all the images of violence and peace in Occupy encampments around the country, “none may be as immediately striking as this image of Dorli Rainey.”
The Atlantic, meanwhile, predicts that the photo “may become the defining image of this week of Occupy unrest.”
-- The Oregonian
| When an 84-year-old woman got pepper-sprayed in the face at Occupy Seattle, it seemed like an easy winner for "iconic" Occupy photo. Not so fast: Photographer Randy Rasmussen of the Portland Oregonian snapped an image yesterday of a young woman also taking a blast of pepper spray directly in the face, and it's become an Internet sensation. The LA Times thinks the Occupy Portland photo "is destined to become an enduring image of the national movement." The protester in this case is 20-year-old Elizabeth Nichols, who promptly vomited and then got arrested on trespassing charges. The Atlantic has more background on her and on the photo itself, and KGW interviewed Nichols upon her release from jail. Photographer Rasmussen, meanwhile, explains how the photo came to be here. |
Historically, crime control has been the responsibility of local and state governments, with little involvement from the federal government. However, as crime became more rampant in the United States, the federal government increased its support for domestic crime control by creating a series of grant programs designed to assist state and local law enforcement. In the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, Congress created the Edward Byrne Memorial Formula Grant (Byrne Formula Grant) program and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) program, along with other grant programs, to assist state and local law enforcement in their efforts to control domestic crime. In 2005, however, legislation was enacted that combined the Byrne Formula Grant and LLEBG programs into the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. This report provides background information on the JAG program. It begins with a discussion of the programs that were combined to form the JAG program: the Byrne Formula Grant and LLEBG programs. The report then provides an overview of the JAG program. This is followed by a review of appropriations for JAG and its predecessor programs going back to FY1998. As mentioned, prior to creating the JAG program in the middle part of the past decade, Congress provided federal assistance to state and local governments for a variety of criminal justice programs through the Byrne Formula Grant and LLEBG programs. Each program is briefly described below. The Byrne Formula Grant program was authorized by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 ( P.L. 100-690 ). Funds awarded to states under the Byrne Formula Grant program were to be used to provide personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance, and information systems for more widespread apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, detention, and rehabilitation of offenders who violate state and local laws. Grant funds could also be used to provide assistance (other than compensation) to victims of crime. Twenty-nine "purposes areas" were established by Congress to define the nature and scope of the programs and projects that could be funded with the formula grant funds. The purpose of the LLEBG program, which was also a formula grant program, was to provide units of local government with federal grant funds so they could either hire police officers or create programs that would combat crime and increase public safety. Like the Byrne Formula Grant program, LLEBG had program purpose areas outlining what types of programs LLEBG funds could support. There were six program purpose areas that governed how state and local governments could use their funding under the LLEBG program. The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-162 ) combined the Byrne Grant programs and LLEBG into the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program (JAG). Congress consolidated the programs to streamline the process for states applying for funding under the programs. JAG funds are allocated to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, America Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The formula used by the JAG program to allocate funds combines elements of the formulas used in the Byrne Formula Grant program and LLEBG. Under the current JAG formula, the total funding allocated to a state is based on the state's population and reported violent crimes. Specifically, half of a state's allocation is based on a state's respective share of the United States' population. The other half is based on the state's respective share of the average number of reported violent crimes in the United States for the three most recent years for which data are available. Under current law, each state and territory is guaranteed to receive no less than 0.25% of the amount appropriated for the JAG program in a given fiscal year (i.e., the minimum allocation). Therefore, after each state's allocation is calculated using the JAG formula, if a state's allocation is less than the minimum allocation, the state receives the minimum allocation as its award. If a state's initial allocation was greater than the minimum amount, then the state receives the minimum allocation plus a share of the remaining funds based on the state's proportion of the country's population and the reported number of violent crimes (population and violent crime data for the states that received the minimum allocation as their award are excluded when allocating the remaining funds for the states that receive more than the minimum allocation). After each state's allocation is calculated, 40% of the state's allocation is directly awarded to units of local government. Awards to units of local government under JAG are made the same way they were under LLEBG; namely, each unit of local government's award is based on the jurisdiction's proportion of the average number of violent crimes committed in its respective state. Only units of local government that would receive $10,000 or more are eligible for a direct allocation. The balance of funds not awarded directly to units of local government is administered by the state, which must be distributed to state police departments that provide criminal justice services to units of local government and to units of local government who were not eligible to receive a direct award from Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). Also, like the Byrne Formula Grant program, each state is required to "pass through" a certain percentage of the funds directly awarded to the state. For JAG, the pass-through percentage is calculated as the ratio of the total amount of expenditures on criminal justice by the state for the most recent fiscal year to the total amount of expenditures on criminal justice by both the state and all units of local government in the past fiscal year. The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 consolidated the program purpose areas under the Byrne Formula Grant and LLEBG programs into a total of seven program purpose areas under the JAG program. The seven broad program purpose areas are intended to give states and local units of government flexibility in creating programs to address local needs. JAG funds can be used for state and local initiatives, technical assistance, training, personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, and criminal justice information systems to improve or enhance such areas as law enforcement programs; prosecution and court programs; prevention and education programs; corrections and community corrections programs; drug treatment programs; planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs; and crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation). The program purposes areas are broad enough to allow programs funded under the Byrne Grant program and LLEBG to continue to be funded under JAG. Funding for JAG has averaged $440 million per fiscal year since Congress started appropriating funding for the program in FY2005. However, as shown in Table 1 , funding for the program fluctuated over that time period. The appropriations data also show that there has been a general downward trend in providing assistance to state and local law enforcement through these formula grant programs. Trends in funding for the Byrne Formula Grant, LLEBG, and JAG programs roughly mirror those of other Department of Justice (DOJ) grant accounts. The amounts appropriated for JAG over the fiscal years have been below the amount authorized for the program, which was $1.095 billion per fiscal year for FY2006-FY2012. Since funding was authorized for the program in FY2006, the most Congress appropriated for JAG—$546 million for FY2009—represented 50% of the amount authorized per fiscal year. | The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program was created by the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162), which collapsed both the Edward Byrne Memorial Formula (Byrne Formula) Grant and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) into a single program. This report provides a brief overview of JAG and its funding. JAG funds are awarded to state and local governments based on a statutorily defined formula. Each state's allocation is based on its proportion of the country's population and the state's proportion of the average total number of reported violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) for the last three years. After a state's allocation is calculated, 60% goes directly to the state government and the remaining 40% is awarded directly to units of local government in the state. State and local governments can use their JAG funding for programs or projects in one of seven purpose areas: (1) law enforcement programs; (2) prosecution and court programs; (3) prevention and education programs; (4) corrections and community corrections programs; (5) drug treatment programs; (6) planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs; and (7) crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation). Funding for JAG has averaged $440 million per fiscal year since Congress started appropriating funding for the program in FY2005. However, funding for the program fluctuated over that time period. The appropriations data also show that since FY1998 there has been a general downward trend in providing assistance to state and local law enforcement through the LLEBG, Byrne Formula, and JAG grant programs. |
Image caption Beppe Grillo, seen here at a rally in Turin, says he has started a "war of generations"
Voice of protest for some, populist demagogue for others, comedian Beppe Grillo has become a serious political player after taking a quarter of the vote in Italy's election, with his anti-establishment Five Star Movement.
Once effectively banished from TV after sending up politicians, he has created a brand of politics all of his own, one that has propelled Five Star to third place in both houses of parliament.
Dissatisfaction with the traditional political class, both right and left, drives a party which has made the internet its medium of choice, and has sought out relative unknowns for its candidates.
At 64, the bushy-haired comic leading this new third force can still work a crowd in a piazza and inspires a wide following on social media, tickling the Italian funny bone with his jokes. He called former Prime Minister Mario Monti, for example, "Rigor Montis" for his deadly serious manner.
All the cards are in his hands Roberto D'Alimonte, Politics professor, LUISS
However, his ability to engage ultimately in the business of government in one of the eurozone's biggest economies is less clear.
For one thing, Italian TV anchors have been famously unable to grill Mr Grillo on his programme, as he shuns the television studios beloved of politicians like centre-right leader Silvio Berlusconi.
Time 'hero'
Born 21 July 1948 in the coastal city of Genoa, he trained as an accountant before taking up comedy. The divorcee and his current wife care for six children from their current and previous marriages between them.
By the late 1970s, he was a regular on public TV, appearing in variety shows.
Despite a road accident in 1980, when he was convicted of manslaughter over the deaths of three people, he was soon fronting his own shows.
Image caption Beppe Grillo (right) is seen here with French actor Coluche at the 1985 Cannes film festival
He became known for daring jokes about politicians such as Bettino Craxi, the Socialist prime minister eventually convicted of corruption.
His raw humour appears to have earned him enemies. According to a biography on his blog, he "fled" TV for the theatre in 1990.
As a touring act, he turned his attention to big issues like consumerism and the environment and in 2005 started his blog, one of the most popular in Italy.
Time magazine chose him as a "European Hero" that year, saying he used "over-the-top humour to probe the serious social issues that leaders don't want to touch".
In 2007 he organised "V-Day" - the V stands for a well-known Italian obscenity - when a petition demanding clean politics in Italy gathered 300,000 signatures in the space of a few hours.
'Lifestyle choice'
Two years later, the wealthy performer set up Five Star, which was soon polling well in local elections.
The party's logo promotes Mr Grillo's blog, making clear that it is very much the vehicle of the ageing comedian, who cannot stand for parliament himself because of his manslaughter conviction.
We've started a war of generations Beppe Grillo
Mr Grillo, the BBC's Alan Johnston reported in December 2012, does not seem to have a great deal of patience for dissenting voices within the movement.
The Five Star leader is often accused of being a populist, constantly criticising the status quo but having little in the way of detailed, viable proposals for a better way forward, our Rome correspondent noted.
This lack of clarity about the party's policies has alarmed leaders in the wider eurozone, wrote the BBC's Europe editor, Gavin Hewitt.
If anything, Five Star's leader sounded even more radical at news of his party's spectacular gains.
"We've started a war of generations," he said in an audio statement on his website, which taunted the leaders of the mainstream parties.
Beppe Grillo's platform Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement is now the largest faction in the lower house, and he may have a kingmaker role in the Senate. Many of his policies are vague, but some of his aims include: New electoral system, based on proportional representation; halving number of MPs; end of public funding of parties
His MPs will only take part of their salary, and will serve a maximum two terms
Support for renewable energy, free internet provision
Voting age reduced to 16 (from 18) and 18 for the Senate (from 25)
Referendum on leaving euro
"They are all losers, they've been there for 25 to 30 years and they've led this country to catastrophe."
Mr Grillo's followers are known as grillini or "little crickets" - his name means "cricket" in Italian - and their collective chirp can no longer be safely ignored by Italy's established parties.
"Grillo will play a decisive role," Roberto D'Alimonte, a politics professor at Rome's LUISS university, told AFP news agency.
"He has to decide whether to strike a limited agreement with the left or whether to go for fresh elections. All the cards are in his hands."
Electoral reform - he would like to halve the number of MPs and strip parties of public funding - is likely to top the list of his demands, but much is still vague.
Speaking before the election, the comedian described his party as a "lifestyle choice". "You have to participate actively in politics, change your habits: eat, travel, shop in a certain way," he was quoted as saying by AFP.
Many must now be wondering what that "certain way" represents. ||||| He has been called many things: clown, showman, a “sans-culottes satirist”, Italy’s “funniest man”. And less complimentary things too: “populist, extremist and very dangerous”. But Beppe Grillo, the comedian-turned-political campaigner, can give as good as he gets. His nickname for Silvio Berlusconi is “the psycho-dwarf”, while he refers to the technocrat Mario Monti as “rigor Montis”. Grillo’s way with words is just one talent he has used to shake up the political landscape in Italy in recent years; his digital savvy – he runs Italy’s most popular blog – has helped him harness growing public anger at corruption and turn it into a grassroots political movement.
Final opinion polls published ahead of the February 24-25 election showed his Five Star Movement in third position with 13-16% of the vote – ahead of Monti’s Civic Choice and only a few points behind Berlusconi’s People of Liberty. So how did he get there? And what does he really believe in?
In the FT
Grillo’s Movimento 5 Stelle (M5S) presents itself as an antidote to a corrupt political elite, focused on five key areas: public water, transportation, development, internet availability, and the environment. In October, the group scored well in a regional election in Sicily, despite a web-driven campaign spending of just €25,000 – far less than the major parties. The head of one of Italy’s biggest companies lamented: “I can’t stand Grillo. He is against everything. He is aiming to destroy not change”.
But for those voters disillusioned with the mainstream, the comedian’s anti-establishment rhetoric offers something brighter. “Politicians have brought us to the brink of suicide. Grillo’s movement is the only one that offers hope,” a shop-owner told the FT’s Ferdinando Giugliano.
And the latest spate of scandals to engulf Italy’s political and corporate class – from arrests at the top of state-controlled Finmeccanica to corruption probes into the Eni and Italy’s third-largest bank – may have driven a large number of undecided voters into Grillo’s arms, says the FT’s Guy Dinmore.
“We are occupying a void, which in other places like Greece has been filled by Nazis and extremists,” Grillo told Guy Dinmore last year. “We are a response to government ‘parasitism’, corruption, a system of political diarrhoea.”
The FT’s Giulia Segreti met one of M5S’s first mayors: former IT project manager Federico Pizzarotti, who won a landslide victory in Parma’s local election last year. He told her: “We need to enter a logic of realism, get a grip on the world that surrounds us and establish a new social pact”. In Siena – where the financial scandal around local bank Monte dei Paschi has stirred up city politics – M5S are optimistic about their chances. As mayoral candidate Michele Pinassi told the FT: “We were the only ones who were not involved in the political manoeuvres which took place around the bank.”
An FT editorial from October credits Grillo for grasping the need for political reform, but warns that his movement “offers no coherent solution to the problems facing Italy” . “Mr Grillo calls for a referendum on the euro, but does not discuss how he would manage the steep depreciation following a departure from the common currency. His plan to reduce government debt through unspecified cuts in wasteful spending are too vague to be taken seriously.”
Best of the rest
“On 4 October 2009, a new national Five Star Movement will be born. It will be born on the Internet. Italian citizens without a criminal record and who are not members of any political party can join… the parties are dead. I do not want to found ‘a party’, an apparatus, a structure of intermediation. Rather I want to create a movement with a programme.” Thus Grillo announced the formal creation of M5S on his blog in 2009.
The Economist notes that while Grillo is campaigning on behalf of M5S, he is not himself standing for political office. “He was convicted for manslaughter after a 1980 traffic accident, and his party’s rules ban someone with such a record from running.”
The New Yorker’s Tom Mueller tells the story of this accident in his 2008 profile, ‘Beppe’s Inferno’ . While driving in the Alps, Grillo’s car hit a patch of ice and tumbled into a ravine, resulting in the death of three passengers. “Ever since then, he’s been a little less happy, a slightly darker person,” according to his brother. Mueller also watched Grillo lead a demonstration in Bologna of about 100,000 people as part of his V-Day event (V for “ Vaffanculo ”). In a typically persuasive stunt, Grillo projected on a screen the names of 24 convicted criminals who, despite their convictions, were at the time serving either in the Italian parliament, or as representatives in the European Parliament.
While commentators often characterize Grillo’s movement as a national protest vote, the party’s members say they are “an environmentally friendly, anticonsumerist, pro-education platform, articulated with plenty of local variations”, reports the New York Times. “Community chapters decide which issues they want to emphasize and then elect a ‘spokesperson’ to represent the ideas in elections.”
In 2007, Time magazine included Grillo’s blog in its first annual blog index, suggesting: “America could use a political satirist fueled by this sort of outrage” . But a piece by Stephan Faris in Time last year was less complimentary, arguing that the fact that Grillo is the most “potent political figure to enter the arena” since Berlusconi signals more than anything that “ Italians are feeling starved for choice ”.
John Lloyd went to see Grillo at a stadium in Florence in 2009, and his report offers a glimpse of why the comedian-turned-politician is such a compelling presence. “His style is a mix of the extravagant and the intimate: He scorns the stage, roaming among the audience. Apparently consumed with rage, he shouts into the microphone that the country is choking with the rottenness of its ruling class, whether political, religious or corporate – then grabs the head of someone in the audience and clasps it to his chest, stroking the hair, as if providing the spectator a moment’s refuge from a cruel world.” ||||| ROME (Reuters) - Italy's stunned political parties searched for a way forward on Tuesday after an inconclusive election gave none of them a parliamentary majority and threatened prolonged instability and a renewal of the European financial crisis.
The results, notably the dramatic surge of the anti-establishment 5-Star Movement of comic Beppe Grillo, left the center-left bloc with a majority in the lower house but without the numbers to control the upper chamber, the Senate.
Financial markets fell sharply at the prospect of a stalemate that reawakened memories of the crisis that pushed Italy's borrowing costs toward unsustainably high levels and brought the euro zone to the brink of collapse in 2011.
"The winner is: Ingovernability," ran the headline in Rome newspaper Il Messaggero, reflecting the deadlock the country will have to confront in the next few weeks as sworn enemies are forced to work together to form a government.
Ratings agency Standard & Poor's said on Tuesday that policy choices of the next Italian government would be crucial for the country's creditworthiness, underlining the need for a coalition that can agree on new reforms.
Pier Luigi Bersani, head of the center-left Democratic Party (PD), has the difficult task of trying to agree a "grand coalition" with former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, the man he blames for ruining Italy, or striking a deal with Grillo, a completely unknown quantity in conventional politics.
The alternative is new elections either immediately or within a few months, although both Berlusconi and Bersani have indicated that they want to avoid a return to the polls if possible: "Italy cannot be ungoverned and we have to reflect," Berlusconi said in an interview on his own television station.
For his part, Grillo, whose movement won the most votes of any single party, has indicated that he believes the next government will last no more than six months.
"They won't be able to govern," he told reporters on Tuesday. "Whether I'm there or not, they won't be able govern."
He said he would work with anyone who supported his policy proposals, which range from anti-corruption measures to green-tinted energy measures but rejected suggestions of entering a formal coalition: "It's not time to talk of alliances... the system has already fallen," he said.
The election, a massive rejection of the austerity policies applied by Prime Minister Mario Monti with the backing of international leaders from U.S. President Barack Obama to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, caused consternation across Europe.
German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble put a brave face on it, saying "that's democracy".
Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo was more pessimistic.
"This is a jump to nowhere that does not bode well either for Italy or Europe," he said.
A long recession and growing disillusionment with mainstream parties and tax-raising austerity fed a bitter public mood and contributed to the massive rejection of Monti, whose centrist coalition was relegated to the sidelines.
Projections by the Italian center for Electoral Studies showed that the center-left will have 121 seats in the Senate, against 117 for the center-right alliance of Berlusconi's PDL and the regionalist Northern League. Grillo would take 54.
That leaves no party with the majority in a chamber which a government must control to pass legislation.
"THE BELL IS RINGING"
On a visit to Germany, President Giorgio Napolitano said he would not comment until the parties had consulted with each other and Bersani called on Berlusconi and Grillo to "assume their responsibilities" to ensure Italy could have a government.
He warned that the election showed austerity policies alone were no answer to the economic crisis and said the result carried implications beyond Italy.
"The bell is ringing for Europe as well," he said in his first public comments since the election.
He said he would present a limited number of reform proposals to parliament, focusing on jobs, institutional reform and European policy.
However forming an alliance may be long and difficult and could test the sometimes fragile internal unity of the mainstream parties.
"The idea of a majority without Grillo is unthinkable. I don't know if anyone in the PD is considering it but I'm against it," said Matteo Orfini, a member of Bersani's PD secretariat.
"The idea of a PD-PDL government, even if it's backed by Monti, doesn't make any sense," he said.
For his part, Berlusconi won a boost when his Northern League ally Roberto Maroni won the election to become regional president of Lombardy, Italy's economic heartland and one of the richest and most productive areas of Europe.
For Italian business, with an illustrious history of export success, the election result brought dismay that there would be no quick change to what they see as a regulatory sclerosis that has kept the economy virtually stagnant for a decade.
"This is probably the worst possible scenario," said Francesco Divella, whose family began selling pasta under its eponymous brand in 1890 in the southern region of Puglia.
Berlusconi's campaign, mixing sweeping tax cut pledges with relentless attacks on Monti and Merkel, echoed many of the themes pushed by Grillo and underlined the increasingly angry mood of the Italian electorate.
But even if the next government turns away from the tax hikes and spending cuts brought in by Monti, it will struggle to revive an economy that has scarcely grown in two decades.
Monti was widely credited with tightening Italy's public finances and restoring its international credibility after the scandal-plagued Berlusconi, who is currently on trial for having sex with an under-age prostitute.
However, Monti struggled to pass the kind of structural reforms needed to improve competitiveness and lay the foundations for a return to economic growth. A weak center-left government may not find it any easier.
The view from some voters, weary of the mainstream parties, was unrepentant: "It's good," said Roger Manica, 28, a security guard in Rome, who voted for the center-left PD.
"Next time I'll vote 5-Star. I like that they are changing things, even if it means uncertainty. Uncertainty doesn't matter to me, for me what's important is a good person who gets things done," he said. "Look how well they've done."
(Additional reporting by Barry Moody, Gavin Jones, Lisa Jucca, Steven Jewkes, Steve Scherer, Catherine Hornby and Massimiliano Di Giorgio, Annika Breidthardt in Berlin. Writing by Philip Pullella and James Mackenzie; Editing by Peter Graff) ||||| By any standards, and whatever happens, Beppe Grillo and the Five Star Movement (M5S) have emerged from Italy's general election as big winners.
Because of the way the electoral system works – favouring alliances Grillo shuns – the M5S will not be the overall victor. But projections suggested it could get more votes than any other party, and could hold the balance of power in the upper house, the Senate. "Honesty will be fashionable again," Grillo declared on Twitter, as the projections began to emerge.
But Grillo has so far refused to do deals with any other parties so small wonder markets and chancelleries view with alarm the progress of the man whose name translates as Joe – Beppe is a diminutive of Giuseppe, or Joseph – Cricket. It could scarcely be bettered as that of someone who has taken it on himself to recount uncomfortable truths, because that is also the role of the cricket in Italy's best-loved children's book, Pinocchio.
Giuseppe Grillo was born 64 years ago in Genoa and studied commercial economics. He might have ended up a provincial accountant.
His studies are the key to why he has such an acute perception of the many scandals in Italy in which politics and finance overlap, like the one enveloped its oldest bank, Monte dei Paschi di Siena, during the campaign. Grillo can read company accounts in a way few journalists and politicians can.
The year before the Italian food giant, Parmalat, collapsed in 2003, Grillo forecast on television what was to be Europe's biggest bankruptcy. By then, he was a well-established comedian and satirist. But not a particularly visible one.
His routine had started to become more political back in the 1980s as Italy sank deeper into the corruption that was to bring down its postwar political order. The result was he found it increasingly difficult to get on television, even after the so-called Tangentopoli scandals and the resulting clean-up, led by Milan prosecutors in the early 1990s.
Grillo did not pull his punches. He named names and fingered firms. He became too hot to handle in a country that was trying to turn its back on what had been brought to light.
He disappeared from the state-owned RAI in 1993. Its rival network, Mediaset, had the odd satire programme, but none was allowed seriously to target the network's proprietor, Silvio Berlusconi.
Grillo's exclusion from television is crucial to understanding the man and his success. It added yet more anger to the ranting monologues that had become his speciality. And it forced him to turn to what was then a medium decidedly outside the mainstream, founding a blog that soon became a samizdat for the young, frustrated, indignant and internet-savvy.
His readers supplied the core around which his friend and his digital guru, Roberto Casaleggio, were later to build M5S. Grillo's immensely successful blog underlines an important point about Italy's recent political history.
Twice in the last two decades, outsiders have burst onto the political scene. Both have done so by exploiting their understanding of the medium that was most relevant at the time. Berlusconi took Italy by storm in 1994 after creating a virtual monopoly of private television; Grillo has relied instead on making himself a master of digital communication.
The M5S, founded in 2009, grew out of what were initially Grillo fan clubs. Their members were encouraged to organise face-to-face encounters through the Meetup website.
Grillo's attachment to the internet and its culture remains as firm as ever. Some of his followers wanted him to break what had become a taboo in the M5S and go on a TV chat show, arguing it would give him an opportunity to convert those unfamiliar with the ways of the web. But, after agreeing to appear on Sky, he pulled out at the last moment.
Lingering bitterness over his exclusion from TV? Or, as his critics maintain, a reluctance to submit himself to cross-examination? On his blog, as in the piazzas he has filled, the communication is essentially one way. | How topsy turvy was last night's deadlocked Italian election? So topsy-turvy that an upstart party headed by a comedian got the most votes. Beppo Grillo's anti-establishment 5-Star Movement got 25% of the vote, more than any other single party, and only slightly less than either of the country's major coalitions, which each managed around 29%, Reuters reports. That's much better than expected—polls out mere days ago had the party at 13% to 26%, the Financial Times reports. Grillo has been called everything from "Italy's funniest man" to a "very dangerous" populist extremist. His comedy pulls no punches—he refers to Silvio Berlusconi as "the psycho-dwarf" and Mario Monti as "rigor Montis"—which has gotten him all but banned from TV, the Guardian explains. With no other outlet, Grillo has fostered an Internet cult of personality, and been wildly successful at it; M5S grew out of his online fan clubs. Started in 2009, the party has grown swiftly, its populist message apparently striking a chord. But Grillo himself cannot stand for office, a BBC profile points out, because he was convicted of manslaughter in a 1980 auto accident. |
NASA Technologies Benefit Our Lives
Trace Space Back to You!
Have you ever wondered how space exploration impacts your daily life?
Space exploration has created new markets and new technologies that have spurred our economy and changed our lives in many ways. This year, NASA unveiled two new complementary interactive Web features, NASA City and NASA @ Home, available at www.nasa.gov/city. The new features highlight how space pervades our lives, invisible yet critical to so many aspects of our daily activities and well-being.
Health and Medicine
Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs)
Red light-emitting diodes are growing plants in space and healing humans on Earth. The LED technology used in NASA space shuttle plant growth experiments has contributed to the development of medical devices such as award-winning WARP 10, a hand-held, high-intensity, LED unit developed by Quantum Devices Inc. The WARP 10 is intended for the temporary relief of minor muscle and joint pain, arthritis, stiffness, and muscle spasms, and also promotes muscle relaxation and increases local blood circulation. The WARP 10 is being used by the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Navy as a noninvasive “soldier self-care” device that aids front-line forces with first aid for minor injuries and pain, thereby improving endurance in combat. The next-generation WARP 75 has been used to relieve pain in bone marrow transplant patients, and will be used to combat the symptoms of bone atrophy, multiple sclerosis, diabetic complications, Parkinson’s disease, and in a variety of ocular applications. (Spinoff 2005, 2008)
Infrared Ear Thermometers
Diatek Corporation and NASA developed an aural thermometer, which weighs only 8 ounces and uses infrared astronomy technology to measure the amount of energy emitted by the eardrum, the same way the temperature of stars and planets is measured. This method avoids contact with mucous membranes, virtually eliminating the possibility of cross infection, and permits rapid temperature measurement of newborn, critically-ill, or incapacitated patients. NASA supported the Diatek Corporation, a world leader in electronic thermometry, through the Technology Affiliates Program. (Spinoff 1991)
Artificial Limbs
NASA’s continued funding, coupled with its collective innovations in robotics and shock-absorption/comfort materials are inspiring and enabling the private sector to create new and better solutions for animal and human prostheses. Advancements such as Environmental Robots Inc.’s development of artificial muscle systems with robotic sensing and actuation capabilities for use in NASA space robotic and extravehicular activities are being adapted to create more functionally dynamic artificial limbs (Spinoff 2004). Additionally, other private-sector adaptations of NASA’s temper foam technology have brought about custom-moldable materials offering the natural look and feel of flesh, as well as preventing friction between the skin and the prosthesis, and heat/moisture buildup. (Spinoff 2005)
Ventricular Assist Device
Collaboration between NASA, Dr. Michael DeBakey, Dr. George Noon, and MicroMed Technology Inc. resulted in a lifesaving heart pump for patients awaiting heart transplants. The MicroMed DeBakey ventricular assist device (VAD) functions as a “bridge to heart transplant” by pumping blood throughout the body to keep critically ill patients alive until a donor heart is available. Weighing less than 4 ounces and measuring 1 by 3 inches, the pump is approximately one-tenth the size of other currently marketed pulsatile VADs. This makes it less invasive and ideal for smaller adults and children. Because of the pump’s small size, less than 5 percent of the patients implanted developed device-related infections. It can operate up to 8 hours on batteries, giving patients the mobility to do normal, everyday activities. (Spinoff 2002)
+ Back to Top
Transportation
Anti-Icing Systems
NASA funding under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and work with NASA scientists advanced the development of the certification and integration of a thermoelectric deicing system called Thermawing, a DC-powered air conditioner for single-engine aircraft called Thermacool, and high-output alternators to run them both. Thermawing, a reliable anti-icing and deicing system, allows pilots to safely fly through ice encounters and provides pilots of single-engine aircraft the heated wing technology usually reserved for larger, jet-powered craft. Thermacool, an innovative electric air conditioning system, uses a new compressor whose rotary pump design runs off an energy-efficient, brushless DC motor and allows pilots to use the air conditioner before the engine even starts. (Spinoff 2007)
Highway Safety
Safety grooving, the cutting of grooves in concrete to increase traction and prevent injury, was first developed to reduce aircraft accidents on wet runways. Represented by the International Grooving and Grinding Association, the industry expanded into highway and pedestrian applications. The technique originated at Langley Research Center, which assisted in testing the grooving at airports and on highways. Skidding was reduced, stopping distance decreased, and a vehicle’s cornering ability on curves was increased. The process has been extended to animal holding pens, steps, parking lots, and other potentially slippery surfaces. (Spinoff 1985)
Improved Radial Tires
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company developed a fibrous material, five times stronger than steel, for NASA to use in parachute shrouds to soft-land the Vikings on the Martian surface. The fiber’s chain-like molecular structure gave it incredible strength in proportion to its weight. Recognizing the increased strength and durability of the material, Goodyear expanded the technology and went on to produce a new radial tire with a tread life expected to be 10,000 miles greater than conventional radials. (Spinoff 1976)
Chemical Detection
NASA contracted with Intelligent Optical Systems (IOS) to develop moisture- and pH-sensitive sensors to warn of potentially dangerous corrosive conditions in aircraft before significant structural damage occurs. This new type of sensor, using a specially manufactured optical fiber whose entire length is chemically sensitive, changes color in response to contact with its target. After completing the work with NASA, IOS was tasked by the U.S. Department of Defense to further develop the sensors for detecting chemical warfare agents and potential threats, such as toxic industrial compounds and nerve agents, for which they proved just as successful. IOS has additionally sold the chemically sensitive fiber optic cables to major automotive and aerospace companies, who are finding a variety of uses for the devices such as aiding experimentation with nontraditional power sources, and as an economical “alarm system” for detecting chemical release in large facilities. (Spinoff 2007)
+ Back to Top
Public Safety
Video Enhancing and Analysis Systems
Intergraph Government Solutions developed its Video Analyst System (VAS) by building on Video Image Stabilization and Registration (VISAR) technology created by NASA to help FBI agents analyze video footage. Originally used for enhancing video images from nighttime videotapes made with hand-held camcorders, VAS is a state-of-the-art, simple, effective, and affordable tool for video enhancement and analysis offering benefits such as support of full-resolution digital video, stabilization, frame-by-frame analysis, conversion of analog video to digital storage formats, and increased visibility of filmed subjects without altering underlying footage. Aside from law enforcement and security applications, VAS has also been adapted to serve the military for reconnaissance, weapons deployment, damage assessment, training, and mission debriefing. (Spinoff 2001)
Land Mine Removal
Due to arrangements such as the one between Thiokol Propulsion and NASA that permits Thiokol to use NASA’s surplus rocket fuel to produce a flare that can safely destroy land mines, NASA is able to reduce propellant waste without negatively impacting the environment, and Thiokol is able to access the materials needed to develop the Demining Device flare. The Demining Device flare uses a battery-triggered electric match to ignite and neutralize land mines in the field without detonation. The flare uses solid rocket fuel to burn a hole in the mine’s case and burn away the explosive contents so the mine can be disarmed without hazard. (Spinoff 2000)
Fire-Resistant Reinforcement
Built and designed by Avco Corporation, the Apollo heat shield was coated with a material whose purpose was to burn and thus dissipate energy during reentry while charring, to form a protective coating to block heat penetration. NASA subsequently funded Avco’s development of other applications of the heat shield, such as fire-retardant paints and foams for aircraft, which led to the world’s first intumescent epoxy material, which expands in volume when exposed to heat or flames, acting as an insulating barrier and dissipating heat through burn-off. Further innovations based on this product include steel coatings devised to make high-rise buildings and public structures safer by swelling to provide a tough and stable insulating layer over the steel for up to 4 hours of fire protection, ultimately to slow building collapse and provide more time for escape. (Spinoff 2006)
Firefighter Gear
Firefighting equipment widely used throughout the United States is based on a NASA development that coupled Agency design expertise with lightweight materials developed for the U.S. Space Program. A project that linked NASA and the National Bureau of Standards resulted in a lightweight breathing system including face mask, frame, harness, and air bottle, using an aluminum composite material developed by NASA for use on rocket casings. Aerospace technology has been beneficially transferred to civil-use applications for years, but perhaps the broadest fire-related technology transfer is the breathing apparatus worn by firefighters for protection from smoke inhalation injury. Additionally, radio communications are essential during a fire to coordinate hose lines, rescue victims, and otherwise increase efficiency and safety. NASA’s inductorless electronic circuit technology contributed to the development of a lower-cost, more rugged, short-range two-way radio now used by firefighters. NASA also helped develop a specialized mask weighing less than 3 ounces to protect the physically impaired from injuries to the face and head, as well as flexible, heat-resistant materials—developed to protect the space shuttle on reentry—which are being used both by the military and commercially in suits for municipal and aircraft-rescue firefighters. (Spinoff 1976)
+ Back to Top
Consumer, Home, and Recreation
Temper Foam
As the result of a program designed to develop a padding concept to improve crash protection for airplane passengers, Ames Research Center developed a foam material with unusual properties. The material is widely used and commonly known as temper foam or “memory foam.” The material has been incorporated into a host of widely used and recognized products including mattresses, pillows, military and civilian aircraft, automobiles and motorcycles, sports safety equipment, amusement park rides and arenas, horseback saddles, archery targets, furniture, and human and animal prostheses. Its high-energy absorption and soft characteristics not only offer superior protection in the event of an accident or impact, but enhanced comfort and support for passengers on long flights or those seeking restful sleep. Today, temper foam is being employed by NASCAR to provide added safety in racecars. (Spinoff 1976, 1977, 1979, 1988, 1995, 2002, 2005)
Enriched Baby Food
Commercially available infant formulas now contain a nutritional enrichment ingredient that traces its existence to NASA-sponsored research that explored the potential of algae as a recycling agent for long-duration space travel. The substance, formulated into the products life’sDHA and life’sARA, can be found in over 90 percent of the infant formulas sold in the United States, and are added to the infant formulas sold in over 65 additional countries. The products were developed and are manufactured by Martek Biosciences Corporation, which has pioneered the commercial development of products based on microalgae; the company’s founders and principal scientists acquired their expertise in this area while working on the NASA program. (Spinoff 1996, 2008)
Portable Cordless Vacuums
Apollo and Gemini space mission technologies created by Black & Decker have helped change the way we clean around the house. For the Apollo space mission, NASA required a portable, self-contained drill capable of extracting core samples from below the lunar surface. Black & Decker was tasked with the job, and developed a computer program to optimize the design of the drill’s motor and insure minimal power consumption. That computer program led to the development of a cordless miniature vacuum cleaner called the Dustbuster. (Spinoff 1981)
Freeze Drying Technology
In planning for the long-duration Apollo missions, NASA conducted extensive research into space food. One of the techniques developed was freeze drying—Action Products commercialized this technique, concentrating on snack food. The foods are cooked, quickly frozen, and then slowly heated in a vacuum chamber to remove the ice crystals formed by the freezing process. The final product retains 98 percent of its nutrition and weighs only 20 percent of its original weight. Today, one of the benefits of this advancement in food preparation includes simple nutritious meals available to handicapped and otherwise homebound senior adults unable to take advantage of existing meal programs sponsored by government and private organizations. (Spinoff 1976, 1994)
+ Back to Top
Environmental and Agricultural Resources
Harnessing Solar Energy
Homes across the country are now being outfitted with modern, high-performance, low-cost, single crystal silicon solar power cells that allow them to reduce their traditional energy expenditures and contribute to pollution reduction. The advanced technology behind these solar devices—which are competitively-priced and provide up to 50 percent more power than conventional solar cells—originated with the efforts of a NASA-sponsored 28-member coalition of companies, government groups, universities, and nonprofits forming the Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) Alliance. ERAST’s goal was to foster the development of remotely piloted aircraft intended to fly unmanned at high altitudes for days at a time, requiring advanced solar power sources that did not add weight. As a result, SunPower Corporation created the most advanced silicon-based cells available for terrestrial or airborne applications. (Spinoff 2005)
Pollution Remediation
A product using NASA’s microencapsulating technology is available to consumers and industry enabling them to safely and permanently clean petroleum-based pollutants from water. The microencapsulated wonder, Petroleum Remediation Product or “PRP,” has revolutionized the way oil spills are cleaned. The basic technology behind PRP is thousands of microcapsules—tiny balls of beeswax with hollow centers. Water cannot penetrate the microcapsule’s cell, but oil is absorbed right into the beeswax spheres as they float on the water’s surface. Contaminating chemical compounds that originally come from crude oil (such as fuels, motor oils, or petroleum hydrocarbons) are caught before they settle, limiting damage to ocean beds. (Spinoff 1994, 2006)
Water Purification
NASA engineers are collaborating with qualified companies to develop a complex system of devices intended to sustain the astronauts living on the International Space Station and, in the future, those who go on to explore the Moon. This system, tentatively scheduled for launch in 2008, will make use of available resources by turning wastewater from respiration, sweat, and urine into drinkable water. Commercially, this system is benefiting people all over the world who need affordable, clean water. By combining the benefits of chemical adsorption, ion exchange, and ultra-filtration processes, products using this technology yield safe, drinkable water from the most challenging sources, such as in underdeveloped regions where well water may be heavily contaminated. (Spinoff 1995, 2006)
+ Back to Top
Computer Technology
Better Software
From real-time weather visualization and forecasting, high-resolution 3-D maps of the Moon and Mars, to real-time tracking of the International Space Station and the space shuttle, NASA is collaborating with Google Inc. to solve a variety of challenging technical problems ranging from large-scale data management and massively distributed computing, to human-computer interfaces—with the ultimate goal of making the vast, scattered ocean of data more accessible and usable. With companies like InterSense, NASA continues to fund and collaborate on other software advancement initiatives benefiting such areas as photo/video image enhancement, virtual-reality/design, simulation training, and medical applications. (Spinoff 2005)
Structural Analysis
NASA software engineers have created thousands of computer programs over the decades equipped to design, test, and analyze stress, vibration, and acoustical properties of a broad assortment of aerospace parts and structures (before prototyping even begins). The NASA Structural Analysis Program, or NASTRAN, is considered one of the most successful and widely-used NASA software programs. It has been used to design everything from Cadillacs to roller coaster rides. Originally created for spacecraft design, NASTRAN has been employed in a host of non-aerospace applications and is available to industry through NASA’s Computer Software Management and Information Center (COSMIC). COSMIC maintains a library of computer programs from NASA and other government agencies and offers them for sale at a fraction of the cost of developing a new program, benefiting companies around the world seeking to solve the largest, most difficult engineering problems. (Spinoff 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1998)
Refrigerated Internet-Connected Wall Ovens
Embedded Web Technology (EWT) software—originally developed by NASA for use by astronauts operating experiments on available laptops from anywhere on the International Space Station—lets a user monitor and/or control a device remotely over the Internet. NASA supplied this technology and guidance to TMIO LLC, who went on to develop a low-cost, real-time remote control and monitoring of a new intelligent oven product named “ConnectIo.” With combined cooling and heating capabilities, ConnectIo provides the convenience of being able to store cold food where it will remain properly refrigerated until a customized pre-programmable cooking cycle begins. The menu allows the user to simply enter the dinner time, and the oven automatically switches from refrigeration to the cooking cycle, so that the meal will be ready as the family arrives home for dinner. (Spinoff 2005)
+ Back to Top
Industrial Productivity
Powdered Lubricants
NASA’s scientists developed a solid lubricant coating material that is saving the manufacturing industry millions of dollars. Developed as a shaft coating to be deposited by thermal spraying to protect foil air bearings used in oil-free turbomachinery, like gas turbines, this advanced coating, PS300, was meant to be part of a larger project: an oil-free aircraft engine capable of operating at high temperatures with increased reliability, lowered weight, reduced maintenance, and increased power. PS300 improves efficiency, lowers friction, reduces emissions, and has been used by NASA in advanced aeropropulsion engines, refrigeration compressors, turbochargers, and hybrid electrical turbogenerators. ADMA Products has found widespread industrial applications for the material. (Spinoff 2005)
Improved Mine Safety
An ultrasonic bolt elongation monitor developed by a NASA scientist for testing tension and high-pressure loads on bolts and fasteners has continued to evolve over the past three decades. Today, the same scientist and Luna Innovations are using a digital adaptation of this same device for a plethora of different applications, including non-destructive evaluation of railroad ties, groundwater analysis, radiation dosimetry, and as a medical testing device to assess levels of internal swelling and pressure for patients suffering from intracranial pressure and compartment syndrome, a painful condition that results when pressure within muscles builds to dangerous levels. The applications for this device continue to expand. (Spinoff 1978, 2005, 2008)
Food Safety Systems
Faced with the problem of how and what to feed an astronaut in a sealed capsule under weightless conditions while planning for human space flight, NASA enlisted the aid of The Pillsbury Company to address two principal concerns: eliminating crumbs of food that might contaminate the spacecraft’s atmosphere and sensitive instruments, and assuring absolute freedom from potentially catastrophic disease-producing bacteria and toxins. Pillsbury developed the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) concept, potentially one of the most far-reaching space spinoffs, to address NASA’s second concern. HACCP is designed to prevent food safety problems rather than to catch them after they have occurred. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has applied HACCP guidelines for the handling of seafood, juice, and dairy products. (Spinoff 1991)
+ Back to Top
||||| A technology developed by NASA and the US Department of Homeland Security designed to save people trapped by debris in natural disasters has been used in the field for the first time. FINDER (Finding Individuals for Disaster and Emergency Response) lived up to its name, locating and saving four people trapped under rubble for days after the 7.8 earthquake in Nepal killed more than 7,000 people and injured countless others.
FINDER is a radar machine that sends a continuous microwave signal through the rubble, and can detect a human’s breathing or heartbeat (and distinguish it from the movement of an animal). It can locate people hidden behind 20 feet of solid concrete or buried beneath 30 feet of rubble, and the person doesn’t need to be conscious to be detected.
The technology is based on remote radar sensing that NASA originally developed to detect life on other planets. (Talk about versatility.) It was deployed with search and rescue teams to Nepal on April 29, four days after the earthquake struck. It had been tested many times before, but had yet to be implemented in a real-life emergency.
“NASA technology plays many roles: driving exploration, protecting the lives of our astronauts and improving—even saving—the lives of people on Earth,” David Miller, NASA’s chief technologist, said in a press statement. “FINDER exemplifies how technology designed for space exploration has profound impacts to life on Earth.”
Many other NASA technologies have been used to help life here on Earth, like land mine removal techniques, firefighting gear, and water purification devices.
NASA is working to commercialize the FINDER technology in order to get it into the hands of more first responders. No doubt more earthquake victims could have been saved if FINDER was deployed with more search and rescue teams. ||||| GIF
Building collapses are a tragic and overwhelmingly fatal occurrence in the developing world. But that could soon change once NASA and the DHS's revolutionary, handheld radar unit comes to fruition. It scans for and identifies buried building collapse victims based solely on their breathing patterns and heartbeats.
Dubbed the FINDER (Finding Individuals for Disaster and Emergency Response), this miniaturized radar system is based on a remote-sensing system originally developed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory to find extraterrestrial life on potentially habitable exo-planets. It is also routinely used in NASA's Deep Space Network to calculate the distances between spacecraft and analyze the internal structure of Saturn. It works by bouncing microwaves off of an object—a pile of debris, a planet, or what have you—and analyzing the echoed signal. Sophisticated algorithms developed at the JPL then isolate even the weakest pulse and shallowest breath from the cacophony of background noise.
Advertisement
"Detecting small motions from the victim's heartbeat and breathing from a distance uses the same kind of signal processing as detecting the small changes in motion of spacecraft like Cassini as it orbits Saturn," said James Lux, task manager for FINDER at JPL, said in a press statement. In fact, the system is so sensitive, it can track a heartbeat through 30 feet (9 meters) of crushed materials, 20 feet (6 meters) of solid concrete, or from 100 feet (30 meters) in open spaces.
The FINDER must still undergo rigorous testing before being adopted by FEMA for use in the field but those trials should be completed by the end of next year. "The ultimate goal of FINDER is to help emergency responders efficiently rescue victims of disasters," said John Price, program manager for the First Responders Group in Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate, in a press statement. "The technology has the potential to quickly identify the presence of living victims, allowing rescue workers to more precisely deploy their limited resources."
Indeed, this technology easily lends itself to a huge number of search and rescue, law enforcement, conservation, and recreational uses. NASA even hopes to adapt it for future space missions as a means of wirelessly monitoring astronauts' vital signs. [NASA - Gifamization of RaoulIncorporated89's Aliens motion tracker radar by Michael Hession] ||||| A couple years ago, NASA and DHS unveiled a portable radar unit based on technology used to monitor spacecraft. This radar unit, though, would be used closer to home—to find people burried under rubble. In the first real-world demonstration of its use, the device helped save 4 men trapped under earthquake rubble in Nepal.
After the earthquake hit, rescuers in the village of Chautara got two prototype units of the device called FINDER, or Finding Individuals for Disaster and Emergency Response. The core of the device is a system that bounces microwaves around to “see.” Crucially, it can discern faint heartbeats and breaths in people buried under several feet of rubble.
Advertisement
In this case, FINDER was apparently able to detect the heartbeats of two men each in two different collapsed buildings. The men had been trapped for days, under as much as 10 feet of rubble.
The details of the rescues are otherwise scant, so it’s hard to say exactly what would have happened without FINDER. Still, it shows the FINDER works out in the field and not just in controlled test situations. We hear about the potential in new technologies all the time—with FINDER, some of that potential just became reality.
Advertisement
This article has been corrected with the original use of the radar system.
[NASA]
Top image via AP; FINDER image via NASA JPL
Contact the author at [email protected]. | NASA's latest out-of-this-world feat happened on planet Earth: Thanks to the space agency's technology, four men trapped for days after the Nepal earthquake were rescued. The village of Chautara received two prototype FINDER devices four days after the disaster struck, Gizmodo reports. The development of the handheld gadgets—whose name is an acronym for Finding Individuals for Disaster and Emergency Response—was actually spurred by technology intended for studying the possibility of alien life, the site notes. The devices fire out what Quartz describes as a "continuous microwave signal," using radar to detect heartbeats or breathing, and can discern the presence of a human from the movement of an animal. They've been shown to work through 30 feet of rubble or 20 feet of solid concrete, NASA reports. In this case, the four men in two separate buildings were found buried below up to 10 feet of debris. The rescue marked the first time FINDER has been used in a real-life situation, Gizmodo notes. "FINDER exemplifies how technology designed for space exploration has profound impacts to life on Earth," says NASA's chief technologist, Dr. David Miller. Now the agency is looking to go commercial with the technology so more rescue teams can access it, notes Quartz, which flags other ways NASA has helped save lives: Its technology has bolstered everything from firefighting gear to land mine removal methods. (Another incredible rescue story saw a 101-year-old saved in Nepal.) |
Most of the diseases treated by stem cell transplantation involve abnormalities of the blood, metabolic, or immune systems. These diseases include several forms of cancer as well as certain nonmalignant diseases. They strike all races, although one racial group or another may have a higher incidence rate for a particular disease. Not all patients with diseases that may be cured by stem cell transplants necessarily pursue them. Depending on a number of donor and patient characteristics, from about 10 to 50 percent of patients are alive 5 years after transplants. The patients who do not survive may succumb either to their diseases or to the consequences of transplantation. Because of these low survival rates, some patients and physicians may be reluctant to select this stressful treatment under most or all circumstances. For most of the diseases involved, other therapies are available that may be less invasive, carry lower risk, or be the medically preferred initial treatment. Nevertheless, some of these diseases are best treated by stem cell transplantation, either initially or after other treatments have failed. Prior to stem cell transplantation, the patient’s bone marrow and, consequently, immune system are destroyed with radiation or chemotherapy. The patient’s bloodstream is then infused with healthy stem cells from a donor. Healthy stem cells can be therapeutic because they can develop into all the components of blood, including those needed to replace the patient’s immune system. In an “autologous” transplant, these cells come from the patient’s own marrow. In a “syngeneic” transplant, the cells come from an identical twin. For many diseases, the most common type of transplant is an “allogeneic” transplant, which consists of stem cells from a genetically compatible donor. Although bone marrow was initially the only source of stem cells for transplantation, in recent years two other sources of stem cells, umbilical cord blood and peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC), have also been used. In 2001, 1,215 of the transplants facilitated by NMDP (70 percent) involved marrow, 42 (2 percent) involved cord blood, and 491 (28 percent) involved PBSC. Umbilical cord blood is collected from the placenta and umbilical cord of a newborn and then preserved in a cord blood bank until needed by a matched patient. The number of stem cells typically obtained from cord blood is relatively small but is often adequate for pediatric patients. For transplantation from cord blood, the blood is volunteered when the blood is banked, not when it is used. The Registry began an umbilical cord blood stem cell program in 1998. Stem cells from peripheral blood may be obtained in numbers sufficient for transplantation when the donor is treated with a drug that causes the cells to leave the marrow and enter the bloodstream where they can be extracted using a process where the stems cells are removed and the remaining components of the blood are returned to the donor. A donor, matched to a patient, may be asked to donate either bone marrow or PBSC, depending on the preference of the patient’s physician. The Registry has offered PBSC to patients since 1999. In addition to its dependence on such common determinants of treatment success as patient age and disease severity, the outcome of a transplant depends on the degree of match between donor and patient with respect to particular blood cell proteins—the human leukocyte antigens (HLA)— that are part of a person’s genetic makeup. Each person has three primary pairs (one set of three from each parent) of these antigens that play a major role in the compatibility of a transplant. A matched donor is defined as one for whom each of these six antigens has the same kind of HLA. If a matched donor cannot be found, then a donor with certain types of mismatch may be used, depending on the transplant center’s preferences, although usually with poorer results. In general, the more closely related two people are, the more likely it is that their HLA will match. At one extreme, identical twins always match, and, in fact, match on all antigens, not just the six ordinarily focused upon. At the other extreme, members of separate racial groups are relatively unlikely to match one another. Full siblings can provide a six out of six match, resulting in what is called an “HLA-identical sibling transplant,” but only about 30 to 40 percent of patients can be expected to have a matched sibling donor. As a result, unrelated donors with matched HLA are sought from the registries in which their HLA type has been recorded. The definition of a match has been refined over time as scientific understanding of HLA increases. HLA are being typed more precisely, so more types of HLA can now be distinguished. Thus, some of today’s matches may be judged as mismatches in the future because better matches are possible. This increasing refinement does not mean, however, that finding a suitable match for transplantation is inevitably becoming more difficult. Some kinds of mismatch may be less dangerous than others. As a result, as research continues, there may be fewer matches by today’s standards, but relatively harmless mismatches will be recognized as such and used. Further, there is evidence that cord blood may not require as exact an HLA match as is usually sought. In support of the Registry, NMDP manages a worldwide network consisting of more than 400 donor centers, recruitment groups, contract laboratories where tissue is typed, apheresis centers, cord blood banks, collection centers where marrow is harvested, blood sample repositories, and transplant centers. More than half of these organizations are donor (91) or transplant centers (149). The relationship of these network components to NMDP varies. Some, such as the recruitment groups, were designed to be parts of the network and work with NMDP, whereas others, such as the transplant centers, exist separately from the network and function independently of NMDP except where specified by contract. The NMDP network includes donor centers and other organizations in foreign countries. The foreign donor centers merge their files with the Registry, contributing more than one million donors. These centers are required to comply with NMDP policies, program standards, and other criteria, although fees for recruiting donors and other financial incentives and payments that go to U.S. centers are not paid to foreign centers. NMDP has also signed cooperative agreements with national registries in 13 foreign countries. Although certain data on donors recruited into these registries are not entered into the Registry’s computer system, these foreign registries will search their donor files on behalf of a U.S. patient searching the Registry. In addition, 6 foreign apheresis centers, 18 foreign bone marrow collection centers, and 36 foreign transplant centers are affiliated with the Registry. NMDP’s affiliations with foreign donor and transplant centers result in its facilitation of both foreign-to-U.S. and U.S.- to-foreign donations. The existence of these international affiliations with the Registry does not prevent U.S. transplant centers from obtaining stem cells through foreign registries directly, that is, without going through Registry channels. Even domestically, the Registry is not a monopoly; other U.S. registries also maintain lists of donors, conduct searches for stem cells, or perform both of these functions. These other registries, however, are relatively small; often specialize in donors from particular racial or ethnic groups; and are private, with no national requirements. The Registry serves two groups of people, donors and patients. The Registry’s donor centers and recruitment groups recruit donors, who are then managed by the donor centers. The Registry pays these centers and groups for signing up donors. In view of the past underrepresentation of minorities in the Registry, NMDP has initiated several recruitment efforts to increase its racial and ethnic diversity. For example, it provides free or low-cost minority-specific educational materials to donor centers and recruitment groups. Probably the most important aspects of managing donors are to maintain their commitment to donation so that they are locatable and willing to donate when their stem cells are requested, to keep records of how to contact them, and to drop from the list any individuals who are too old or no longer able or willing to donate. A patient’s first contact with the Registry occurs when his or her physician or a transplant center conducts a free, preliminary search of the Registry for stem cell donors and cord blood units. The preliminary search, which takes about 24 hours, produces a list of donors and cord blood units that are potentially suitable for that patient. However, many patients for whom such searches are conducted are not necessarily good candidates for stem cell transplants. For example, some searches may be conducted for patients who are too sick for transplantation or who are good candidates for less invasive therapies. If the physician and patient decide to continue a search for an unrelated donor (or unrelated cord blood) on the Registry, then more information about the matching stem cells is required and a formal search is begun. Only a physician affiliated with a transplant center in the NMDP network may conduct a formal search of the Registry. The Registry bills the transplant center a one-time activation fee of $600. It also bills the center for the cost of the four or five testing components of the search process, each of which costs more than $100. Since several donors may have to be tested before one is selected for the patient, these component charges may be made repeatedly, resulting in a search costing thousands of dollars to the transplant center, and more to the patient when the center adds its markups. Relatively few insurance plans pay for searches; however, plans often pay for the actual transplantation including the procurement of stem cells. The details of the formal search and the subsequent steps in the process possibly leading to transplantation depend on the additional information needed; the results of laboratory tests; and the kind of stem cells sought, whether stored blood from an umbilical cord or blood or marrow from a living donor. If a suitable donor or suitable cord blood unit is found, and if other requirements in the process toward transplantation are fulfilled, then either (1) the marrow is harvested from the donor at a collection center, (2) PBSC are collected from the donor at an apheresis center, or (3) the cord blood is shipped from a cord blood bank. The stem cells are transported to the transplant center, often by courier. The final step is the infusing of the patient’s bloodstream with the selected marrow, PBSC, or cord blood. The entire process—from the initiation of the formal search to the transplant (infusion)—typically requires many months and sometimes more than 1 year. However, some patients cannot wait this long for transplants because their medical conditions are deteriorating. During the search process, NMDP offers patient advocacy services through two channels. Its Office of Patient Advocacy (OPA) provides several services, including education, support, case management intervention, financial assistance, and special advocacy projects. For example, OPA publishes the Transplant Center Access Directory, a patient guide listing all transplant centers in the NMDP network. The directory describes each center’s HLA matching criteria and lists the diseases each typically treats with unrelated donor marrow transplants. The directory also provides information on comparable search charges and risk-adjusted patient survival data. In addition to the services provided through OPA, NMDP requires that each transplant center have a patient advocate on staff. The patient advocate must be familiar with the center’s transplant program and with issues of unrelated donor stem cell transplantation and must not be a member of the transplant team. A 1996 OIG review raised concerns about donor center costs and performance. Before the review, NMDP used two methods to finance donor centers. NMDP paid for services at some donor centers through cost-based contracts for direct expenses, such as labor and fringe benefits and donor expenses. Other donor centers received payments from NMDP for specified activities, such as donor recruitment and donor search activities. The OIG recommended that HRSA and NMDP develop a payment approach for all donor centers that more directly linked funding to performance and emphasize recruitment and retention of donors, particularly donors from racial and ethnic minority groups. Further, the OIG recommended that HRSA and NMDP develop procedures to monitor the performance of donor centers and other organizations in the NMDP network. The program’s recruitment efforts have apparently increased the number of donors on the Registry since 1998 for all racial and ethnic groups, and the theoretical probability of finding a match has increased steadily over the life of the Registry. By 2001, the number of donors from each minority group on the Registry had grown by at least 30 percent and was either greater than or no more than 2 percentage points below its representation in the general population. However, when viewed as a percentage of each group’s population, African Americans and Hispanics are still substantially underrepresented. For all racial and ethnic groups, the theoretical probability of finding a match has grown as the Registry size has increased, but equal access to a match may not be attainable. Differences among racial and ethnic groups in the rarity and variability of the genes responsible for compatibility in transplants may mean that the Registry cannot achieve equal probability for all groups. Further, the goal of equal access to a match conflicts to some extent with attempts to maximize the overall numbers of matches and transplants for the Registry. The size of the Registry has increased since 1998 by 36 percent, and no minority group increased by less than 30 percent. NMDP’s efforts to recruit minorities may have substantially increased the number of donors from these populations. Percentage increases for minorities ranged from 30 percent for Native Americans to 53 percent for Hispanics. Caucasian donors increased 28 percent. (See table 1.) The multiple race category had the largest increase, 123 percent, but this may result in part from an increase in the use of that category by those to whom it applies, rather than solely from an increase in the availability of donors of that group. The total of more than 1,000,000 minority donors listed in 2001 contrasts with the approximately 80,000 we reported in 1992. As can be seen in table 1, by 2001, the proportions of both African Americans and Hispanics on the Registry were within 2 percentage points of their proportions in the 2000 U.S. population. The proportions of other minorities on the Registry were either approximately equal to or exceeded their proportions in the population. While the differences between Registry and population levels of representation for African Americans and Hispanics reflect improved representation of these groups, the 2-percentage point differences still indicate a substantial underrepresentation in comparison with their proportions in the U.S. population. Specifically, in 1992, the proportions of African Americans and Hispanics, both at 4 percent of the Registry, were 8 and 5 percentage points lower, respectively, than their proportions in the U.S. population (which were 12 and 9 percent, respectively). This translated to a 67 percent underrepresentation for African Americans and a 56 percent underrepresentation for Hispanics. The current 2-percentage point differences on the Registry for these groups translate to a 17 percent underrepresentation for African Americans and a 15 percent underrepresentation for Hispanics. For all racial and ethnic groups the theoretical probability of a patient’s finding at least one matched donor has increased every year since 1988 but has leveled off somewhat since 1998. The increase in theoretical probability represents significant progress in raising the likelihood of a match. It reflects inclusion in the Registry of the most common genetic types over the period when the Registry was small and new, and recruitment efforts were beginning. The leveling off likely reflects the fact that for all groups, after years of recruitment activity, improvement now occurs mainly when rare types are added. (See fig. 1.) Nevertheless, the theoretical probability of finding a match varies by race, ranging in 2001 from under 60 percent for African Americans to over 80 percent for Caucasians. This probability has always been higher for Caucasian patients than for patients in any minority group, in part, perhaps, because of Caucasians’ greater numbers and level of representation on the Registry. The theoretical probability of finding a matched donor has been lowest for African American patients. This is because, in addition to their smaller numbers and lower level of representation on the Registry, their rarer and more varied HLA combinations make matching harder. Because of genetic differences among racial and ethnic groups, there is reason to believe that patients from some minority groups, notably African Americans, may never have the same probability of finding matches, and therefore of access to transplants, as Caucasian patients, regardless of the efforts made to recruit them. Any patient is more likely to find a match in his or her own racial and ethnic group than in another group, so patient matching rates depend, to some extent, on the number of people in the patient’s group on the Registry. All minorities are at a disadvantage for this reason. Further, some minority groups, such as African Americans, are known to have more rare and more varied HLA combinations than do Caucasians. The likelihood of finding a match from among a group of racially or ethnically defined donors declines with the rarity and number of possible genetic types found among the members of that group. In addition to these factors related to finding a match, there are other factors that may contribute to differences in access to a transplant. Some of these depend on the characteristics of those who volunteer for the Registry. For example, donors from different groups may differ in their tendency to be available (locatable, willing, and physically able) when called upon to actually donate. Other possible factors involve the attitudes, health, medical care, resources, and preferences of the patients. Patients of different groups may differ in their tendency to engage the health care system at all, to seek help early enough in their illnesses, or to search the Registry as opposed to pursuing other options. It may be possible to effect changes in these factors, thereby moving closer to the goal of equal opportunity for all racial and ethnic groups. However, not only is the goal of equal access to transplants for all groups difficult to attain, but it also may conflict with the statutory goal of maximizing the number of patients who find a match and thereby maximizing the number of transplants facilitated. Recruiting donors with the rare HLA combinations that may be needed for minorities is difficult. Large numbers of donors must be recruited and retained in the Registry in order to identify and add each rare genetic type to the donor pool, so the cost of recruiting such donorsthe incremental cost of adding these rare genetic types to the donor poolis large. Thus, devoting many resources in pursuit of a small number of rare genetic types may divert resources from other efforts, such as recruiting Caucasians and other groups with more common genetic types, which might more readily increase the number of matches. Because of the difficulty encountered in finding matches for minority patients, NMDP engages in a number of initiatives to increase the Registry’s diversity. It conducts outreach, recruitment, and educational efforts directed towards minorities. In addition, NMDP has initiated a program to pay the full costs of HLA tissue typing for minority donors. Although the difficulty in finding matches for minority patients may be unavoidable, it may be mitigated somewhat by the efforts of the Registry to increase the number of donors on whom it has complete HLA typing. The vast majority of actual donations are obtained from by donors whose HLA is fully typed. When only these donors are considered, each minority constitutes a larger portion of the Registry than its representation in the population. Therefore, because access to a match depends upon, for the most part, the fully typed donors on the Registry, access for minorities may be somewhat better than might be assumed by looking at the Registry as a whole. Although the exact number of patients in need of transplants from unrelated donors is not known, the number of patients utilizing the Registry to search for matches is about one-third of the estimated number of patients in need of unrelated donor transplants. About one-tenth of the number of patients estimated to be in need of unrelated donor transplants obtain transplants facilitated by NMDP. These figures suggest that the Registry may be underutilized for both searching and facilitating transplants. Physicians for approximately 15,000 U.S. patients requested preliminary searches of the Registry from 1997 through 2000. This number represents 34 percent of the 44,740 U.S. patients estimated to be in need of stem cell transplants from unrelated donors in that 4-year period. About 4,000, or 27 percent, of the patients whose physicians searched the Registry eventually received transplants facilitated by NMDP. However, a significant proportion of searches were not completed because stem cells were obtained from donors or organizations without the involvement of NMDP. From 1997 through 2000, physicians carried out preliminary searches for 34 percent of the number of U.S. patients estimated to be in need of transplantation from unrelated donors at any time during that period. The number of transplants facilitated by NMDP for all U.S. patients was 9 percent of the number estimated to be in need. The precise number of patients in need of unrelated donor transplants is not known. However, there is a greater than 10 to 1 ratio between the number of such patients estimated to be in need and the number of transplants facilitated by NMDP. This suggests that the Registry may be underutilized, as many more U.S. patients may need unrelated donor transplants than obtain them through the Registry. The ratio of the number of preliminary searches to the number of patients in need varied by race and ethnicity. Among specific racial and ethnic groups, the percentage of preliminary searches was highest for Caucasian patients (35 percent), and was lowest for Hispanic patients (24 percent) and Native American patients (24 percent). (See table 2.) We do not know why these apparent disparities in search rates exist. About one-fifth of the number of patients estimated to be in need formally searched the Registry (9,623 out of 44,740). Less than one-tenth of those estimated to be in need ultimately received NMDP-facilitated transplants. The numbers and percentages of preliminary searches that progressed to formal searches from 1997 through 2000 are presented by racial and ethnic group in table 2. The overall rate of progression from preliminary to formal search is 63 percent. Further, 4,056 of the 15,231 U.S. patients (27 percent) for whom preliminary searches were conducted from 1997 through 2000 eventually received NMDP-facilitated transplants. This number corresponds to 9 percent of the number of patients estimated to be in need of unrelated transplants during that period. Reasons for cancellation of preliminary searches or formal searches vary. Although clinical reasons, such as a change in medical condition, are the most commonly cited explanations for cancellation of both preliminary and formal searches, another relatively frequent reason is that stem cells are obtained from a provider other than NMDP, such as a related donor or another registry. (See tables 3 and 4.) We do not know the proportion of these cases that used a related donor, and some cases may not have been able to find a potential match at NMDP. However, it is likely that in at least some of these cases, NMDP might have facilitated a transplant if the patient’s transplant center had not selected another registry to provide the stem cells, thus representing another kind of possible underutilization of NMDP. Lack of donor availability—not finding any potential matches— and financial reasons are not commonly cited as reasons for cancellation of either kind of search, although it is possible that patients with limited financial resources or insurance may not be encouraged to make preliminary searches. Several factors may influence a decision to obtain stem cells from a provider outside the NMDP network, including the source of stem cells preferred by the physician, the costs involved, and the timeliness of the response. Outside providers may need to be used when the physician sees cord blood as a viable alternative source to bone marrow or PBSC because some cord blood banks do not list their cord blood units with NMDP. Search and procurement costs can also be a factor. Administrators of transplant centers that have done non-NMDP-affiliated transplants told us that other registries charge less for searches than NMDP does. For example, we were told that only a few other registries worldwide charge a search activation fee in addition to their charges for the specific medical procedures needed to confirm that a particular donor is healthy and matched to the patient. In addition, the cost of stem cell procurement at NMDP tends to be higher. One transplant center director told us that the center pays about $13,000 for stem cells obtained directly from overseas registries and about $21,000 for NMDP stem cells. However, even when NMDP is not paid for a formal search or for stem cells, it may still have been utilized. An official at NMDP informed us that it is possible for a transplant center to determine the NMDP-affiliated registry at which a foreign (but not domestic) potential match is registered on the basis of a preliminary search and to contact the foreign registry directly to obtain the stem cells. Moreover, that official stated that some transplant centers may do this regularly. Thus, although NMDP may not be recorded as having facilitated the transplants that result, its role in helping to locate donors in such cases means that its utilization is somewhat greater than the record suggests. Timeliness can be another factor. A few center administrators mentioned that NMDP takes longer to provide stem cells than do other registries. For example, one administrator told us that the time it takes to obtain a donor sample for testing at the transplant center—an important component of the overall search process—can be a week longer for NMDP than for a foreign registry, depending on whether NMDP judges the search to be urgent. Waiting this additional week can be frustrating for those at the transplant center who are anxious to determine whether they have a confirmed match or will have to continue searching. Another director told us that stem cells from non-NMDP providers are more likely to be received by the date the transplant center requests them than are stem cells from NMDP. NMDP has attempted to shorten its time from formal search initiation to transplant and reports that its median time has decreased from 4.8 months from 1992 through 1993 to 3.7 months in 2000. The optimal time frames for patients vary. Some may not be urgent, but NMDP has shown that it is possible to complete urgent searches in less than a month and reports that it expects to begin offering urgent searches as an option to transplant centers. Organizations that participate in the NMDP network generally comply with the standards and procedures it has established. In order to encourage adherence, NMDP uses various mechanisms to monitor compliance and performance. These include site visits, the Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) program, and incident reports, as well as a financial incentive system designed to improve the performance of donor centers. The results of the selected site visits, analysis of CPI measures, and incident report summaries we reviewed show that the organizations in the NMDP network generally adhere to NMDP’s standards and procedures. In general, NMDP ensures compliance by taking action against noncompliant organizations. (See app. II for examples of how NMDP uses these systems to achieve compliance with respect to selected activities.) In 2001, NMDP required 24 donor and transplant centers to take corrective actions because they did not meet its standards. The incentive system encourages compliance by linking donor center reimbursement to performance. NMDP uses several mechanisms to encourage the compliance and performance of the participating organizations in its network. NMDP staff members conduct site visits to donor centers to monitor the centers’ compliance with NMDP’s standards and procedures and to provide feedback about the results. It also employs the CPI program to assess and provide feedback at donor, transplant, and bone marrow collection centers. Further, NMDP monitors incident reports from donor, transplant, and collection centers and may take corrective action including, in serious cases, suspension or termination. According to NMDP officials, NMDP staff members conduct site visits at donor centers approximately every 2 years to assess donor center compliance with program standards and procedures. NMDP staff members review the organization of the program (such as its support and staffing structure), recruitment activities (such as performance against goals and donor drive compliance), donor management activities (such as management of patient-related donor search requests, confidentiality procedures, and records management), and billing and reimbursement to determine adherence to NMDP’s standards and procedures. They also compare performance against goals for various recruitment activities. Upon completion of these visits, NMDP staff members discuss the results with the center staff and provide a summary report. Centers that are noncompliant are advised of the problems and are required to submit corrective action plans to NMDP that address the problems. Our review of donor center site visit reports indicates that the reports identified problems and the corrective actions required of the centers to meet NMDP criteria. Since 1998, NMDP has conducted additional site visits at transplant centers to verify the accuracy of the data that the transplant centers submit electronically to NMDP. NMDP staff members compare the data from the centers’ records with the data from NMDP’s computer system. During these visits, NMDP staff members may also review other activities, such as the signing of patient consent forms. The site visits are scheduled for each transplant center every 4 years. NMDP plans to issue its first annual report on the results of the first cycle of site visits in September 2002. NMDP monitors the operations and performance of its centers through the CPI program. The program includes nine goals to increase the efficiency of key activities in the search and donation process and measures performance against these goals. For example, at donor centers, NMDP measures the timeliness of registering new donors, resolving search- related requests, and processing requests for HLA blood typing. At transplant centers, NMDP measures the time it takes to resolve and report confirmatory testing results. NMDP also monitors post-transplant data submission through CPI. These outcome data are used in research studies to analyze outcomes for donors and patients. NMDP also monitors the accuracy and timeliness with which donor and transplant centers submit donor and patient blood samples to NMDP’s research repository. NMDP provides regular feedback to donor and transplant centers concerning their performance on CPI measures. For example, each center receives a monthly report summarizing the results of its activities, along with those of all other centers, in the previous month. The reports allow centers to analyze how consistently they perform and to compare their results to those of other centers in the network. NMDP also conducts a year-end analysis to provide feedback to centers. Through its CPI program, NMDP monitors whether organizations in its network meet goals for timeliness and may recommend corrective actions for centers that do not meet these goals. A year-end analysis of the CPI program shows that during 2001 almost half (44 of 91) of donor centers met all nine CPI goals for the search process. In addition, 20 more donor centers met eight of nine goals, and 9 others met seven of nine goals. According to NMDP, the remaining 18 donor centers (20 percent) that met six or fewer goals were the focus of technical assistance to improve their performance. Our analysis shows that 5 of the 91 donor centers (5 percent) were placed on review or probation for failing to meet CPI goals in 2001. Our analysis also shows that NMDP placed 18 of the 129 transplant centers (14 percent) on probation. Eight of these were placed on probation for failure to meet CPI goals for the search process, seven for failure to meet CPI measures concerned with timely submission of recipient follow-up information, and three for problems related to the accuracy and timeliness of submissions of donor and patient research blood samples. NMDP supplements these activities with incident reports, which are written accounts of deviations from policies and standards that are categorized by the nature of a deviation and include, but are not limited to, categories such as confidentiality concerns, customer service, and product transport. NMDP uses incident reports to track deviations from its standards by recording the specifics of incidents. NMDP staff members follow up and investigate incidents. In addition, an NMDP committee reviews a summary report of incidents twice a year to identify developing trends that may affect an individual center or the entire network. Since NMDP reviews center participation annually, the committee may follow up on deviations from NMDP’s standards or take action such as probation, suspension, or termination during the reapplication process. We reviewed a summary of incidents categorized by type of problem and the corrective actions taken to resolve them. For example, one incident involved an operating room staff member administering less appropriate blood, rather than the donor’s own blood, which was available for that purpose, during a marrow harvest. NMDP monitored an investigation at the hospital to ensure that the problem would be addressed. To improve the operation of its donor centers, NMDP ties their reimbursement to their performance. In 1997, NMDP instituted a new reimbursement system that links payment to performance on CPI goals for all donor centers. NMDP pays donor centers a fee for each activity to recruit donors for the Registry, such as signing up donors, typing their tissues, maintaining their files, and other activities related to confirming that the donors identified as potential matches for a searching patient actually match and are medically cleared for donation. NMDP pays each donor center a recruitment fee of $28 and $10 for every minority and Caucasian donor, respectively, recruited up to the number specified in its recruitment goal. NMDP establishes annual recruitment goals for each donor center based on the demographics of the local population. When donors are recruited, the donor centers that do not register a specific percentage of the new donors within a certain period incur financial penalties. For example, the CPI goal for registering new donors is to register at least 85 percent of them within 35 days of the date on which they volunteer. NMDP would reduce the total recruitment fee it pays to donor centers that register less than 85 percent of new donors within this time frame. NMDP data show that in May 2001, 98 percent of all donor centers met this goal. In addition, NMDP pays incentives to donor centers for retaining donors at various points in the donation process. In spite of progress in recruiting minority donors, racial and ethnic disparities in the Registry remain, due in part to differences in the genetic variability within groups. Thus, differences among racial and ethnic groups in the probability of obtaining transplants will likely continue. Many in need of transplants may not search the Registry; those that do often do not obtain them, and for those that obtain them, the transplants may not be facilitated by NMDP. Although NMDP enhances the quality of its network by actively monitoring the compliance and performance of the component organizations, it has not attained the level of utilization that might be expected. In its written comments on a draft of this report, HRSA stated that the report provides an accurate and helpful overview of the status of the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry. HRSA agreed that recruitment of donors cannot be the sole strategy for improving access to unrelated donor transplants for minority patients or those with unusual antigens, and cited the need for other efforts to supplement recruitment activities. However, HRSA noted that the Registry consists of two distinct groups of donors, those who are fully HLA typed and those who are less than fully typed. Since the vast majority of actual donors are selected from the fully typed portion, minority racial and ethnic groups therefore make up a larger proportion of the Registry than their representation in the U.S. population. We have noted in the report that, because of this, access for minorities may be somewhat better than might be assumed by looking at the Registry as a whole. With regard to underutilization of the Registry, HRSA agreed that many patients who could benefit from unrelated donor transplants never consult the Registry or do so too late in the course of their illnesses. HRSA suggested a slightly modified method for estimating the number of patients in need. We modified table 2 in accordance with its suggestions, but note that both approaches produce virtually identical estimates of overall utilization. (See app. I.) Finally, HRSA noted that many factors affect the time required to complete a search of the Registry. While searches frequently take many months and the median search time has decreased, NMDP has completed medically urgent searches in less than a month, on a pilot basis, and reports that it expects to begin offering urgent searches as an option to transplant centers. We have revised the report to include this clarification. HRSA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. HRSA’s comments are reprinted in appendix III. We are sending this report to the Administrator of HRSA, the NMDP Chief Executive Officer, and other interested persons. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please call me at (202) 512-7119. Key contributors to this assignment are listed in appendix IV. Registry utilization is the extent to which patients in need of unrelated stem cell transplants search the Registry or obtain NMDP-facilitated transplants. In determining utilization, it is necessary to use indirect methods to calculate the number of patients in need because it is impossible to determine this number directly. For example, although we may be able to obtain data on the number of patients who have been diagnosed with certain blood and immune system diseases, we are unable to determine the number for whom stem cell transplants are the best treatment. One measure of the utilization of the Registry is the extent to which the number of patients obtaining transplants facilitated by the Registry is as high as it could be. The maximum possible utilization of the Registry would be indicated if the number of U.S. patients conducting preliminary searches was approximately equal to the estimated number of patients needing unrelated donor transplants. A second measure of utilization is the extent to which patients search the Registry. The method we used to assess the two aspects of utilization—searching the Registry and obtaining an NMDP-facilitated transplant—is also used by NMDP. It involves estimating the number of patients in need of unrelated donor transplants by using data on the number of HLA-identical sibling transplants obtained from IBMTR. This method and two alternative methods that are also used by NMDP to assess utilization by U.S. patients, one based on the number of preliminary searches conducted and the other based on the incidence of disease, are described here. For the years from 1997 through 2000, we estimated the number of Caucasian patients in need of unrelated donor transplants based on the average annual number of Caucasian HLA-identical sibling transplants performed during those years. To obtain this estimate, we multiplied the number of HLA-identical sibling transplants, for Caucasians, by the number of patients of that group that genetic theory predicts—on the basis of the average number of children born to the women of that group—are in need of unrelated donor transplants for every Caucasian HLA-identical sibling transplant in the United States. The average number of children born to Caucasian women over a lifetime during the years from 1989 through 1995 was 1.7925. Subtracting the individual who is in need of a transplant gives n = 0.7925 as the number of siblings available to be transplant donors. The likelihood of a match between two siblings is 25 percent because each child inherits one-half of each parent’s HLA genes, resulting in a one out of four chance of having the same HLA genes as a sibling has. Therefore, the probability that no sibling HLA identically matches the one in need is P = (0.75) . For a Caucasian patient, P = (0.75)0.7925 = 0.796134. The number of patients in need of unrelated stem cell transplants is equal to the number of sibling donor transplants multiplied by P/(1 − P). Therefore, for every HLA-identical sibling transplant recorded for a Caucasian patient, there will be 0.796134/(1 − 0.796134) = 3.90518 patients in need of unrelated donor transplants. Because there were 7,920 sibling transplants performed for Caucasian patients from 1997 through 2000, we estimate that 3.90518(7,920) = 30,929 Caucasian patients were in need of stem cell transplants during that period. The estimates for other racial and ethnic groups are presented in table 2. Because minorities generally have less access to health care and may therefore have less access to sibling transplants specifically, these estimates were obtained by assuming that each minority group’s need for unrelated donor transplants is proportional to the Caucasian group’s need. The estimates were obtained by multiplying the number of persons in the minority group by the proportion of Caucasians in need of unrelated donor transplants. This approach implicitly assumes that differences across groups in fertility rates are of negligible importance in computing the numbers of patients in need of unrelated donor transplants. An alternative approach assumes that minorities and Caucasians have equal access to HLA-identical sibling transplants. Based on this assumption, this approach derives the needs of minorities for unrelated donor transplants directly from their observed numbers of HLA-identical sibling transplants. In doing so, it allows for the possibility that each group has its own disease incidence rates and that the differences among groups in their relative levels of sibling donations reflect these rates, not differences in access. (See table 5.) This approach, while utilizing somewhat different assumptions from the method above, produces a virtually identical estimate of the underutilization of the Registry (10 percent versus 9 percent). The second method used by NMDP to assess Registry utilization is based simply on the annual number of patients conducting preliminary searches. In order to use this method, one must assume that this number directly represents those in need of unrelated donor transplants. One cannot assess the extent to which those in need search the Registry on the basis of this number since the number itself is the number of patients searching. However, one can assess the extent to which those in need obtain NMDP- facilitated transplants by considering the annual percentage of patient searches that result in NMDP-facilitated transplants. This method yields an estimate of the patients searching who obtain NMDP-facilitated transplants of 27 percent. (See table 5.) Although this approach has been used by NMDP as a way of assessing utilization, officials at NMDP observe that the validity of this approach to utilization assessment is limited by the freedom with which patients can choose whether to search. These officials point out that preliminary searches are performed for some patients who are not good candidates for transplant and that other patients who should submit preliminary searches probably do not. Because of the lack of correspondence between the number of patients in need and the number performing preliminary searches, this estimate is not likely to be as accurate as the other two. The third method used by NMDP is based on an estimate of the annual number of U.S. patients newly diagnosed from 1997 through 2000 with selected diseases that might benefit from unrelated stem cell transplants. The estimated number of potential recipients for each disease is obtained from disease incidence estimates, with adjustments for the likelihood that (1) the patient is young enough to benefit from transplantation, (2) disease severity is not so great as to make transplantation futile, and (3) an HLA- identical sibling donor is available, thereby making unrelated donor transplant unnecessary. The ratio of the annual number of NMDP- facilitated transplants for U.S. patients diagnosed with these selected diseases during this period to the estimated number of new U.S. patients with the diseases is used to assess utilization. (See table 6.) The ratio, for all patients with the selected diseases, corresponds to an estimated percentage of candidates obtaining transplants—10 percent—that is very close to the estimate obtained by the first method. The validity of this third method is constrained by the limited number of diseases for which data are available. NMDP requires that the organizations participating in its network comply with its standards and procedures. This appendix discusses how NMDP achieves the compliance by network organizations with standards and procedures for obtaining the informed consent of donors and patients, donor selection criteria, confidentiality of records, collection and transportation of marrow, laboratory standards, and maintenance of donor files in the Registry. At each stage of the search process, NMDP requires donors to sign informed consent statements for procedures performed at the donor and transplant centers. A volunteer must sign an informed consent form before being listed as a donor on the Registry, and also before the collection of blood for initial and follow-up testing, infectious disease testing, and participation in research. In addition, consent must be obtained before notifying the transplant center that a donor is willing to proceed to marrow donation and before the administration of anesthesia. Consent must also be obtained before collecting blood specimens for research and before any proposed procedure for which the donor has not previously given consent. According to NMDP officials, during each donor center site visit, NMDP staff members review about 35 randomly selected donor files. NMDP staff members check that each donor has signed all appropriate consent forms for the stages of the recruitment and search process the donor has completed. According to an NMDP official, since NMDP began performing site visits in 1998, missing or unsigned donor consent forms occurred in only a few cases, indicating that a high level of compliance has been achieved. The number of missing consent forms is not readily available because cumulative data are not permanently stored. Transplant centers are responsible for obtaining informed consent from each transplant patient, for collecting research blood samples that are sent to the NMDP repository, and for submitting baseline and follow-up data to the Registry. Some of the centers have separate consent forms specifically for the research samples and clinical data, whereas others incorporate consent for the research samples and clinical data into the informed consent document the patient signs for the transplant. NMDP is currently collecting information on how transplant centers are handling the informed consent process for the research samples and clinical data submitted to NMDP. This information will be analyzed, and NMDP will evaluate whether changes in policies or procedures should be made to the consent process for obtaining NMDP data and research blood samples. In order to be considered for stem cell donation, donors must be from age 18 through 60 and in good health. Individuals with serious illness or those who are significantly overweight are disqualified. The donor must provide a medical history and acknowledge in writing that the history is accurate. Pertinent donor medical information is evaluated for acceptance or deferral according to NMDP medical eligibility standards and criteria set by the medical director at the local donor center. NMDP monitors whether registered donors have filled out the appropriate medical history questionnaires, but NMDP does not store cumulative data on the number of missing medical history questionnaires. During each donor center site visit, NMDP staff members check a random number of health history questionnaires. However, NMDP is limited in how it monitors the donor selection process. Although NMDP tracks the number of donors who are unavailable for medical reasons, it cannot determine whether an unavailable donor’s medical condition was preexisting, and therefore should have been caught in the health screening at the time the donor volunteered, or whether the donor’s health changed during the period between registration and a request for testing prior to donation. NMDP requires that each participating donor center have a system for safeguarding donor confidentiality. The Registry identifies donors by code number only. Donor centers maintain donor identity and location and limit access to this information by using locked file cabinets and locked rooms. NMDP also requires that each participating transplant center have a system of confidentiality in place to protect the privacy of patients. It provides that transplant patient identification should not appear on papers or publications, and the patient’s name and location should not be disclosed to the donor(s). Organizations responsible for marrow collection and transport must meet certain participation criteria in order to be affiliated with NMDP. Among other things, participating cord blood banks must be accredited and licensed or registered by the Food and Drug Administration for collection of autologous blood. Marrow collection centers must provide emergency and intensive care services and must be accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. In addition, each collection center must have a licensed medical director, an experienced marrow collection team that regularly collects bone marrow, and a designated site for management of collection activities. NMDP has established standards to ensure the proper collection and transportation of marrow. These require that bone marrow collection centers have experienced personnel to collect marrow and adequate resources to support collection and management activities. In addition, NMDP requires that collection centers maintain written standard operating procedures and policies for collecting, testing, labeling, and transporting marrow. Laboratories responsible for HLA tissue typing must meet certain criteria in order to be affiliated with NMDP. Participating HLA typing laboratories must be accredited by the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics (ASHI) or the European Foundation for Immunogenetics for techniques required by NMDP. Laboratories must also comply with all state and federal regulations, including the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments of 1988 (or their non-U.S. equivalent) for infectious disease testing, blood typing, red cell antibody screening, and other tests required by NMDP. As part of NMDP’s quality control program, participating laboratories must type blind samples provided by NMDP. The laboratories must maintain monthly error rates less than or equal to 1.5 percent. If a laboratory fails to meet quality control and quality assurance standards established by ASHI or NMDP, NMDP may require that laboratory to submit a corrective action plan. After the period allowed for corrective action, the laboratory’s contract with NMDP may be terminated if it still does not meet the standards. From February 2000 through April 2002, NMDP suspended five laboratories responsible for HLA tissue typing. The length of suspension ranged from 1 to 9 weeks, and reasons for suspension were related to electronic communication problems, overdue samples, and poor turnaround time. NMDP’s central database is updated when new donors are recruited and when information on existing donors changes or donors are deleted from the Registry. Information about newly recruited donors includes donor identification numbers, demographic data, and the donors’ HLA types. According to NMDP procedures, domestic donor centers submit data on donors daily through NMDP’s central database. The following staff members made important contributions to this work: Donna Bulvin, Charles Davenport, Donald Keller, Kelly Klemstine, Behn Miller, and Roseanne Price. | More than 30,000 people are diagnosed annually with leukemia or other blood, metabolic, or immune system disorders, many of whom may die without stem cell transplants, using stem cells from bone marrow or another source. When a patient needs a transplant of donated stem cells and no genetically compatible related donor is available, the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry may help the patient search for compatible stem cells from unrelated donors. The National Bone Marrow Registry Reauthorization Act of 1998 required, among other things, that the Registry carry out a donor recruitment program giving priority to minority and underrepresented donor populations, ensure efficiency of operations, and verify compliance with standards by organizations that participate in the Registry. From 1998, when the National Bone Marrow Registry Reauthorization Act was enacted, through 2001, the number of stem cell donors on the Registry increased for all racial and ethnic groups. Although the exact number of patients in need of transplants is not known, estimates suggest that about one-third of them use the Registry to search for donors. The organizations that are involved in transplantation and participate in the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) network generally adhere to NMDP's standards and procedures. In 2001, NMDP required 24 centers to take corrective actions because they did not meet its standards. |
Investigators so far have found firearms, explosives, spoiled food and a trench of human feces at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, federal prosecutors said.
The FBI is expected to take 21 days to complete processing "crime scenes'' at the federal property in Harney County, which includes 24 structures and an outdoor camping area, the prosecutors wrote in court records filed Tuesday.
The FBI Evidence Response Team began its work last Friday. The team initially found "significant amounts'' of human feces in and around the outdoor camping area and "large food stores that are spoiling'' in living quarters on the refuge outside Burns, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Ethan Knight and Geoffrey Barrow wrote.
Federal officials have found two large excavated trenches and an "improvised road on or adjacent to grounds containing sensitive artifacts,'' the prosecutors wrote.
"At least one of these trenches contains human feces,'' according to Knight and Barrow.
The prosecutors also noted that "the FBI is concerned that vehicles and buildings may be booby trapped."
They didn't specify what kind of explosives or guns had been been discovered or how many.
Ammon Bundy, 40, is now jailed on a federal conspiracy charge in Portland, accused of leading the Jan. 2 armed takeover of the wildlife sanctuary that lasted 41 days. The last four occupiers surrendered last week. Twenty five people have been named in indictments charging them with conspiring to impede federal officers from doing their jobs at the refuge.
Bundy has said he and his followers were demonstrating against the return to prison of local ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steve Hammond, and the federal government's control of public land.
An FBI Art Crimes Team, known as ACT, is going over "a particularly sensitive cultural site'' next to or at the refuge's outdoor camping area, the prosecutors' memo said.
Their memo came in response to requests by defense attorneys for the government to preserve evidence in the case.
Prosecutors said they'll allow defense lawyers and their investigators to gain access to the refuge after the evidence has been collected but before the site is restored or open to the public.
Defense lawyers will be escorted by FBI personnel and won't be allowed to disturb or remove items from the scene, Knight and Barrow wrote.
The government further will make all evidence seized in the investigation available for inspection at the FBI field office in Portland, prosecutors said.
There appear to be some objections by defense lawyers to such an arrangement, which is expected to be worked out in court on Feb. 24.
Ammon Bundy's lawyers want access by an investigator and videographer to the refuge site immediately to observe the FBI's processing of the scene, according to court documents.
In a recorded message from jail, Ammon Bundy said he and other supporters who were at the refuge found rodents and animal droppings in buildings and tried to clean up the facilities.
Co-defendant Jason Patrick's attorney, Andrew Kohlmetz, had filed a request for the government to preserve any evidence and allow the defense access to the crime scenes. He also urged the court to manage the discovery of evidence in the case because of the number of defendants and size of the alleged crime scene.
-- Maxine Bernstein
[email protected]
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian ||||| The rightwing occupation of an Oregon wildlife refuge unravelled after police arrested protest leader Ammon Bundy and four other key members of the anti-government militia.
On the 41st day of the standoff, the final four occupiers surrendered, and federal prosecutors announced that they had filed felony charges against a total of 25 people associated with the armed occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge.
The group of 23 men and two women – who are all facing the same federal charge of conspiracy to impede officers through “force, intimidation and threats” – hail from 10 states across the US and have a wide range of prior involvement in conservative activism and criminal activity. From a convicted murderer to a shock-jock radio host to several key figures in the anti-government movement in the west, here are the 25 facing criminal prosecution – plus details on the ones who got away.
Ammon Bundy, 40, Emmett, Idaho
Ammon Bundy is the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, whose 2014 standoff with the federal government paved the way for the Oregon occupation. Ammon immediately emerged as the leader of the Malheur group when the standoff began 2 January, arguing in speeches from the refuge that the federal government had no authority to control public lands in rural Harney County.
He was arrested on a highway outside of the occupation on 26 January and remains in jail in Portland, but he continues to release statements defending his actions as a constitutionally protected protest against government overreach.
Ryan Bundy, 43, Bunkerville, Nevada
Ryan Bundy is Ammon’s older brother and was also present at the occupation from the start. He was a less prominent public figure than his brother, but appeared to play a major role in planning and organizing protest actions – at one point travelling outside the refuge to recruit other supporters and helping destroy part of a government fence to protest against federal restrictions on cattle grazing.
He was taken into custody during the same police confrontation that resulted in his brother’s arrest, and he was in the car driven by protest spokesman LaVoy Finicum, whom police shot and killed.
Shawna Cox, 59, Kanab, Utah
Shawna Cox, one of two women facing charges in the federal government’s conspiracy case, was also in the car with Finicum and Ryan Bundy before she was arrested 26 January. Cox, a close family friend of the Bundys, frequently acted as a spokeswoman for the occupation. She is a mother of 12 and one of the few defendants officials have released on house arrest as the case moves forward.
Ryan Payne, 31, Anaconda, Montana
Ryan Payne. Photograph: AP
Ryan Payne was another high-profile militia leader, who was arrested after he reportedly exited Finicum’s truck and surrendered just before the fatal shooting. He had helped coordinate community meetings outside of the refuge. Payne was also very active in Cliven Bundy’s standoff in 2014.
After his arrest last month, Payne “claimed to have an absolute duty to prevent the federal government from continuing to manage lands … [and] claimed a right to use force to oppose an unlawful arrest”, according to court records.
Brian Cavalier, 44, Bunkerville, Nevada
Brian Cavalier. Photograph: AP
Brian Cavalier, who often goes by the name “Booda”, was the fifth person arrested in the highway confrontation. When the Guardian visited Cliven Bundy last year, Cavalier described himself as the family’s bodyguard and said he was willing to do whatever was necessary to protect the Bundys if federal officials returned.
Pete Santilli, 50, Cincinnati, Ohio
Pete Santilli. Photograph: AP
Pete Santilli, a rightwing radio host and vocal defender of the Bundys, was the first to report that Ammon Bundy may have been arrested. He delivered the news live on his YouTube stream, which he had used throughout the occupation. Soon after Bundy was arrested that evening, Santilli himself was taken into custody on the same conspiracy charges.
Prosecutors allege that Santilli participated in the protests, but his attorneys and civil liberties advocates argue that he was a journalist with free speech rights.
Joseph O’Shaughnessy, 45, Cottonwood, Arizona
Joseph O’Shaughnessy. Photograph: AP
In a separate arrest on the night of 26 January, Joseph O’Shaughnessy, another regular presence at the refuge, was also taken into custody. He told the Guardian during the first week of the occupation that he was with a group called the North American Coalition of Constitutional Militias and that he was acting as a neutral party aimed at preventing violence.
Prosecutors have used social media videos to argue that he was directly involved in the occupation, citing one video in which he states: “We need every patriot in this country to come out here and support the message.”
Jon Ritzheimer, 32, Peoria, Arizona
The final arrest on the first night police took militia leaders into custody was of Jon Ritzheimer, a key militia leader who was home in Arizona and allegedly turned himself in to his local police department. Ritzheimer, a prominent anti-Islam activist, often stood guard at the entrance to the refuge, but was most known for his bizarre Facebook video rant about donated dildos.
He posted a Facebook video of his daughters crying before he turned himself in.
Duane Ehmer, 45, Irrigon, Oregon
Duane Ehmer. Photograph: AP
Duane Ehmer, one of the few occupiers from Oregon, was arrested at an FBI checkpoint one day after the Bundy brothers were taken in. Ehmer was one of the most frequently photographed protesters at the refuge, often seen riding his horse Hellboy while carrying a large American flag.
“These guys are just normal, everyday people,” he told the Guardian during the first week of the occupation. Ehmer was also one of the few released while awaiting trial. After his arrest, his horse was “held in a safe location”.
Jason Patrick, 43, Bonaire, Georgia
Jason Patrick. Photograph: AP
In the chaotic day after the arrest of the Bundy brothers and death of Finicum, Jason Patrick, a regular presence at the occupation, briefly emerged as the militia’s new de facto leader. The role, however, was short-lived. Like Ehmer, Patrick was arrested at an FBI checkpoint while leaving the refuge. At the start of the occupation, he offered journalists guided tours of the refuge.
Patrick also faced charges in August 2014 of “making terrorist threats” after he “threatened to kill everyone” inside a municipal court building in Georgia, according to prosecutors.
Dylan Anderson, 34, Provo, Utah
Dylan Anderson. Photograph: AP
Dylan Anderson was also arrested one day after Finicum was killed. Prosecutors say he was also known by his nickname “Captain Moroni” – a reference to a military leader in the Book of Mormon. He was at the refuge from the start of the occupation, according to prosecutors.
Kenneth Medenbach, 62, Crescent, Oregon
Kenneth Medenbach. Photograph: Multnomah County
Kenneth Medenbach was added to prosecutors’ conspiracy case when a federal grand jury issued a formal indictment. His claim to fame, however, came two weeks earlier when he was arrested while driving a stolen government vehicle outside the refuge and into the local town of Burns.
Jeff Banta, 46, Yerington, Nevada
Jeff Banta. Photograph: Multnomah County
Jeff Banta was one of the final four occupiers who refused to leave for two weeks after the rest of the militia members surrendered, were arrested or escaped without consequence. Banta and the three other holdouts were indicted by a federal grand jury in the conspiracy case before they ultimately surrendered.
Sandra Anderson, 48, Riggins, Idaho
Sandra Anderson. Photograph: Multnomah County
Sandra Anderson was thrust into the national spotlight during the final 24 hours of the standoff as she refused to surrender and made bold statements during live-streamed phone calls as the FBI closed in on the holdouts. “Please don’t let us die in vain,” she shouted on the YouTube stream broadcast to tens of thousands of people. She eventually surrendered without incident and appeared in court in tears the following day.
Sean Anderson, 47, Riggins, Idaho
Sean Anderson. Photograph: Multnomah County
Sean Anderson is Sandra’s husband and another final holdout whose dramatic comments received widespread attention in the final hours of the occupation. “We are not surrendering, we’re turning ourselves in,” he said at one point during a live-streamed phone call. He eventually walked out holding an American flag.
David Fry, 27, Blanchester, Ohio
David Fry. Photograph: Multnomah County
David Fry was the final occupier at the refuge, and after the three other holdouts surrendered, he initially refused to stand down during tense negotiations that were broadcast live on YouTube. He repeated his claims that he was willing to die for his anti-government protests and also noted that he was having suicidal thoughts, sparking fears on the outside that the occupation would end with more bloodshed. After an hour of charged debate with mediators on the phone, he turned himself in.
Fry initially received media attention when he filmed himself using the federal government’s computers at the refuge.
Blaine Cooper, 36, Humboldt, Arizona
Blaine Cooper. Photograph: Washington County (Utah) sheriff's office
Blaine Cooper was a very outspoken militia leader at the start of the occupation, but disappeared from public view in its final weeks. Cooper reappeared when he showed up for the recent funeral of Finicum in Utah. When a reporter asked him why he had not been arrested or indicted, he responded: “Lucky, maybe.”
Cooper’s luck ended on the final day of the occupation when he was arrested in Utah – as one of nine additional people charged as the standoff came to a close. Cooper was previously present at confrontations with the government at the Nevada Bundy ranch and Sugar Pine mine in Oregon early in 2015.
Neil Wampler, 68, Los Osos, California
Neil Wampler, a retired woodworker, was at the occupation from the beginning and told the Guardian that he was also present at Cliven Bundy’s standoff. Wampler became less friendly with reporters after the Oregonian reported that he was convicted of second-degree murder for the killing of his father in 1977. The paper reported that Wampler was armed at the refuge and was barred from possessing firearms due to the murder conviction.
Corey Lequieu, 44, Fallon, Nevada
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Corey Lequieu. Photograph: Washoe County jail
Corey Lequieu, who was at the refuge from the beginning, told the Guardian in a recent phone interview that he left just after Finicum died. Though he managed to leave the occupation without being arrested, officials later apprehended him in Nevada.
At the refuge, it appeared that Lequieu was frequently involved in the group’s “security” team. In an earlier interview at the standoff, he said he would not be surprised if the occupation dragged on for months, saying, “This isn’t going to happen overnight.”
Jason Blomgren, 41, Murphy, North Carolina
Little is known about Jason Blomgren, who appears to have stayed out of the news for the occupation. Notably, it appears he was arrested in Bunkerville, Nevada, which is where the Bundy ranch is located.
Darryl Thorn, 31, of Marysville, Washington
Occupation member Darryl Thorn also appears to have skirted attention until his arrest on the final day of the standoff. He was reportedly arrested in Bend, Oregon.
Eric Flores, 22, Tulalip, Washington
Eric Flores was arrested in his hometown of Tulalip, Washington on the last day of the standoff. He appears to be the youngest person charged in the federal conspiracy case.
Wesley Kjar, 32, Manti, Utah
Wesley Kjar. Photograph: Weber County sheriff's office
Wesley Kjar was another individual added to the federal case at the end of the occupation. He appeared in federal court in Salt Lake City.
Geoffrey Stanek, 26, Lafayette, Oregon
Geoffrey Stanek. Photograph: Multnomah County sheriff's office
Geoffrey Stanek was one of the last of the 25 to be arrested. When officials announced the nine new indictments on the final day of the standoff, prosecutors initially redacted his name, because he was still at large. He was arrested near Portland the following evening.
Stanek spoke to the Guardian during the first week of the occupation, saying he had arrived with friends. “I really strongly believe in what we’re doing,” he said, adding: “It’s really good not just to give back to the community, but to open their eyes and say, ‘This is their land.’”
Travis Cox
Officials revealed on Friday that the final occupier charged was Travis Cox, who is named in the latest indictment. As of late Friday, however, he had not yet been apprehended and no information was available about his identity.
The ones who got away
Despite the long list of people charged, some have pointed out that other known members of the occupation have avoided arrest and prosecution. Mel Bundy, another brother of Ammon and Ryan, was at the occupation at the beginning, but it appears that he left fairly early on. He has not been charged.
Brandon Dowd, a black occupier profiled by the Guardian, has not been named in the federal indictment. But he was recently arrested on an unrelated warrant in a theft case.
Brandon Dowd. Photograph: Sam Levin for the Guardian
Notably, many of the most high-profile women of the militia – some of whom the Guardian interviewed in the first week of the standoff – are also not listed in the charges.
Melissa Cooper, wife of arrested militiaman Blaine Cooper, was one of the main cooks at the refuge headquarters. She wrote on Facebook that her husband was arrested and subsequently told Oregon Public Broadcasting that he was apprehended in front of their children, saying: “It was traumatic for them.”
It appears that there are also no charges against Debra Carter Pope, a 61-year-old Fallon, Nevada, resident who was one of the main cooks alongside Cooper. She is the fiancee of Lequieu. Reached by phone after his arrest, she declined to comment.
Oregon Public Broadcasting also wrote about the women of the occupation and interviewed another protester named Kristi Jernigan, who said she was not worried about being arrested: “God would not ask me to do something if he wasn’t going to protect me.” ||||| (Reuters) - The FBI said it has found a trench of human feces and a road excavated on or next to a sensitive cultural site with artifacts at the Oregon wildlife refuge where armed men staged a standoff with authorities, according to court records filed on Tuesday.
Heavy equipment set up by the occupiers as a roadblock remains on the road leading to the headquarters to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside Burns, Oregon February 12, 2016. REUTERS/Jim Urquhart
The filing came after the FBI on Friday said it was working with the Burns Paiute Tribe to identify damage to the tribe’s artifacts and sacred burial grounds at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge during the six-week occupation.
Evidence teams began processing the crime scenes at the refuge on Saturday, two days after the final occupiers surrendered, and the process will last about three weeks, according to the document submitted in Oregon federal court on Tuesday.
U.S. Attorney Billy Williams of Oregon wrote in the filing that investigators found “significant amounts of human feces” in a trench at an outdoor camping area that was either on or next to a “sensitive cultural site.”
“Occupiers appear to have excavated two large trenches and an improvised road on or adjacent to grounds containing sensitive artifacts,” he wrote.
Williams also said in the filing - which was a response to occupiers’ requests to have their attorneys allowed onto the site - that firearms and explosives were found, and it was feared vehicles and buildings could be booby trapped.
He said he would be willing to allow Bundy’s legal team onto the site once authorities are finished processing it and before it is reopened to the public.
The takeover, which began on Jan. 2, was sparked by the return to prison of two Oregon ranchers convicted of setting fires that spread to federal property near the refuge.
It was led by brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who were arrested in January along with other protesters on their way to speak at a community meeting in John Day, Oregon.
A spokesman for the group, Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, was shot dead during the stop.
The final four occupiers surrendered on Thursday with David Fry, 27, repeatedly threatening suicide in a dramatic final phone call with mediators before he gave up. All 12 people arrested in connection with the standoff will face charges of conspiracy to impede federal officers, according to the FBI.
The cost of the standoff will likely run into the millions of dollars, with local and state agencies looking to the federal government - and the arrested occupiers - to shoulder the bulk of the bills. | FBI agents scouring the "crime scenes" at Oregon's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge since the occupiers surrendered have uncovered a trench filled with "significant amounts of human feces" on or next to a cultural site of the Burns Paiute Tribe. "Occupiers appear to have excavated two large trenches and an improvised road on or adjacent to grounds containing sensitive artifacts," prosecutors write in a court document filed Tuesday, per Reuters. Occupiers had apparently set up a camp there. Authorities also found "large food stores that are spoiling'' and firearms and explosives, leading some to fear that vehicles and buildings "may be booby trapped," prosecutors say, per the Oregonian. The document was in response to occupiers' requests that their lawyers be allowed to visit the refuge; a group of 23 men and two women are charged with conspiracy to impede officers through "force, intimidation, and threats," reports the Guardian. Prosecutors say defense lawyers will be allowed on site, accompanied by FBI personnel, when authorities finish collecting evidence in three weeks. Lawyers can then review evidence at an FBI field office in Portland, prosecutors say. Lawyers for occupation leader Ammon Bundy have demanded an investigator and videographer observe the FBI's processing of the scene. Details are to be ironed out in court on Feb. 24. (The standoff brought this female lawmaker into the spotlight.) |
Under EPCRA, facilities that maintain specified quantities of certain hazardous chemicals are required to annually submit chemical inventory forms to state and local emergency response officials to help them prepare for and respond to chemical incidents. The information to be provided includes (1) an estimated range of the maximum amount of specified hazardous chemicals present at the facility at any time during the preceding calendar year, (2) an estimated range of the average amount of these chemicals present daily, and (3) the location in the facility of the specified chemicals. Inventory forms are required for approximately 500,000 materials. See appendix II for an example of a chemical inventory form. Additionally, EPCRA requires the formation of local emergency planning committees whose members include, at a minimum, local police, fire, civil defense, public health, environmental, and transportation officials, as well as representatives of facilities subject to the emergency planning requirements, community groups, and the media. There are approximately 3,500 local emergency planning committees across the nation. Under the act, the committees are required to develop and periodically review emergency response plans for their communities that, among other things, identify chemical facilities and outline procedures for response personnel to follow in the event of a chemical incident. The chemical facilities are required to supply emergency response information to the local emergency planning committee for incorporation into the emergency response plans. While this report does not specifically address them, EPCRA also has other provisions designed to provide local responders with information about chemical hazards. For example, facilities must notify local responders if there is a release of a specified quantity of certain hazardous substances, and facilities must submit to EPA a toxic chemical release inventory covering releases that occurred during the preceding calendar year. Under the Clean Air Act, chemical facilities maintaining more than a specified amount of a regulated substance must register risk management plans with EPA headquarters at least every 5 years. Regulated substances include 77 toxic substances, such as ammonia and chlorine, and 63 flammable substances, such as butane and hydrogen. A risk management plan includes documentation that the facility has (1) completed a hazard assessment that incorporates a 5-year accident history, by substance by site, and an evaluation of potential consequences to surrounding communities of chemical releases that includes the worst-case scenario; (2) developed a prevention program that includes facility safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and employee training measures; and (3) developed a response program that outlines emergency health care procedures, employee training measures, and procedures for informing the public and local agencies responsible for responding to chemical releases. The act requires that risk management plans be submitted to local agencies or entities responsible for preparing for or responding to chemical releases. EPA’s implementing regulations for risk management plans require chemical facilities to coordinate emergency response plans created under their emergency response programs with community emergency response plans. The members of the emergency response community we contacted have varied views on the adequacy of the information reported in chemical inventory forms and risk management plans and on the manner in which that information is delivered. Most members of the community believe that information provided in chemical inventory forms and risk management plans is adequate to meet the needs of local responders, but some do not share this view. In addition, many members made suggestions to improve the usefulness of the information. Finally, some members of the community question the usefulness of the manner in which the federally required information is delivered. Local responders in most of the communities we contacted believe that the information in the chemical inventory forms and the risk management plans is generally adequate to help them prepare for and respond to chemical incidents. Responders from eight of the communities find the information in the inventory forms to be adequate and said they use it in different ways, such as to identify specific chemicals at facilities, determine the location of stored chemicals, and analyze the potential effects of a chemical release on the surrounding community. Responders from seven communities find the information in risk management plans adequate. Some responders said they use the information in the plans to develop community emergency response plans, one reported using it to develop a “quick action” plan to share with other responders, and others said they use it to conduct planning activities at facilities. Representatives from five national organizations told us they believe the federally required information is generally adequate to help local responders prepare for chemical incidents. Representatives from the American Chemistry Council, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and the National Association of State Fire Marshals said that the information in the chemical inventory form is useful and critical in preparing for chemical incidents. They said that the chemical inventory form helps responders by identifying the extent of facilities’ emergency response capabilities. Regarding risk management plans, representatives from the American Chemistry Council and the National Volunteer Fire Council stated that the plans are useful in identifying small facilities that store and use dangerous chemicals, such as chlorine, that were not previously required to report federal information, and in identifying the resources responders would need to respond to chemical incidents. Local responders from a few communities question the adequacy of the information. Local responders from three communities said they have particular concerns about the accuracy and currency of the chemical information they receive. For example, responders from two communities said that they do not know if the information in the risk management plans they receive is accurate and that there is no way to be sure. (As discussed in a subsequent section of this report, because EPA has performed limited verification of risk management plans, the agency does not have a complete picture of the accuracy of most of the plans.) Responders from the third community commented that the information in chemical inventory forms is outdated and that they have found errors in these forms. In addition, local responders from five communities commented that they receive such a large amount of information that it is difficult to manage. Responders from two of these communities stated that the risk management plan is too large to be taken to the scene of an incident and that responders have difficulty locating important information in the plan. As a result, most local responders said they prefer to use the chemical inventory form when responding to a chemical incident. An EPA official stated that the risk management plan was intended to serve many purposes, including providing a community with information to assist in development of an emergency response plan and providing responders with hazard information that might not be available from other sources. However, the agency did not design the risk management plan specifically to be used at the scene of an incident. Regarding the national organizations, four representatives said that the information is not adequate to assist local responders for various reasons. One reason cited was that the information is not current and accurate. For example, the International Fire Marshals Association has concerns about the accuracy of facilities’ analyses of community impacts contained in the risk management plans. Another reason is the large amount of information responders receive. For example, a representative from the National Emergency Management Association said that the risk management plan contains too much information, which makes it difficult for responders to know what information is necessary. In light of the events of September 11, 2001, we asked members of the emergency response community about the adequacy of chemical information to assist them in responding to chemical incidents involving terrorists. The community has diverse opinions about this issue as well. Local responders from six communities believe the chemical information they receive would be adequate to assist them in the event of a chemical incident caused by terrorists. For example, some said that the chemical information that responders need is the same whether an incident is caused accidentally or by a terrorist act. Responders from two communities said they would consider the information adequate if it had been reviewed and found accurate. Finally, responders from two communities said they did not have adequate chemical information to respond to a terrorist incident but did not provide suggestions to improve the information. We also asked national organizations for their opinions on the adequacy of chemical information to help responders in the event of a terrorist incident, and three provided comments. The representative for the Chlorine Institute said that the information is sufficient. A representative from one organization, the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, said that the outcomes of accidental and terrorist-related chemical releases would be similar but that the latter may pose additional threats to the responders. A representative from the third organization, the National Emergency Management Association, stated that communication between federal law enforcement agencies and local emergency responders is more important in the event of a terrorist incident than the adequacy of federally required chemical information. Although most of the members of the emergency response community that we contacted said the federally required information was adequate, these members generally want more specific information on more chemicals. Their suggestions included (1) lowering or eliminating the thresholds of hazardous chemicals that trigger the requirement for facilities to report them and expanding the list of chemicals to be reported; (2) changing the focus of the risk management plan from worst-case scenario to probable- case scenario; and (3) requiring chemical facilities to report exact quantities of chemicals, rather than ranges, on the chemical inventory form. Members of the emergency response community also had suggestions, not relating specifically to the federally required chemical information they received, that they believe would improve their ability to respond to chemical incidents. Many members of the emergency response community made suggestions that they believe would improve the quality of the information reported. Local responders from six communities believe that the thresholds for chemical inventory forms and risk management plans are set too high and suggested that EPA revisit this issue for the most dangerous chemicals. A responder from one community stated that all chemicals on the lists of hazardous substances are dangerous and that chemical facilities should report them if they have them in any quantity. Local responders from another community believe that the threshold for petroleum products should be lowered because these products account for the majority of hazardous incidents in their community. Local responders from three communities suggested expanding the list of chemicals required to be reported in chemical inventory forms and risk management plans. For example, responders from one community would like to see mining chemicals regulated. Representatives from several national organizations shared the following concerns: Representatives from the International Association of Fire Fighters commented that the thresholds for reporting hazardous chemicals are set too high. Representatives from the National Volunteer Fire Council suggested that the thresholds should be reviewed on a regular basis. Representatives from the American Chemistry Council, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Fire Marshals Association, and the National Volunteer Fire Council believe that propane should be included in risk management plans because it poses a greater hazard than other chemicals already included. Some local responders and representatives of three national organizations expressed concern that EPA and others place too much emphasis on and devote too many resources to developing the worst-case scenario section of the risk management plan. Local responders from four communities believe that many chemical facilities are spending most of their efforts analyzing worst-case scenario data when it is highly unlikely that such a scenario will occur. A representative from the International Association of Fire Chiefs said that although the worst-case scenario information may be useful, the probable-case scenario is more useful and that fire fighters are interested in the most likely scenario. Representatives from the International Association of Fire Fighters stated that responders should not disregard the likely scenario because of focusing on the worst-case scenario. Chemical facilities’ inventory forms must document the estimated ranges of maximum and average daily amounts of specified chemicals that they handle. For example, one range on the form is from 100 pounds to 999 pounds; another is from 10,000 pounds to 99,999 pounds. Local responders from three communities stated that these ranges are not useful because they lack specificity. Representatives from the International Association of Fire Fighters and the International Fire Marshals Association commented that local responders want chemical information to be reported in exact quantities and not broad ranges. Members of the emergency response community also noted other types of information and resources they believe would assist local responders when responding to chemical incidents in their communities. Local responders from seven communities expressed the following two concerns. They would like to have more information on the chemicals being transported through their communities by road or rail, and they would like to have additional funding for training and equipment so that they can be better prepared to respond to a chemical incident when it occurs. Officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency commented that they provide training for local responders to help them respond to chemical incidents. However, they noted that resources are limited and only a small percentage of local responders nationwide have attended their training. Representatives from the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Fire Marshals Association, the National Association of State Fire Marshals, and the National Volunteer Fire Council emphasized that local responders should work with chemical facilities to obtain information through site visits of facilities and by conducting drills. Representatives from the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Fire Marshals Association, the National Emergency Management Association, and the National Volunteer Fire Council also agreed with the local responders’ need for information on transportation of hazardous chemicals. Although most of the local responders we contacted said that the way in which they receive chemical information—in hard copy—is adequate, some responders and representatives of national organizations question the adequacy of this manner of delivery. EPCRA and the Clean Air Act do not specify the form in which responders are to receive chemical inventory forms and risk management plans. Local responders from eight communities said hard copy delivery of chemical inventory forms is adequate. Local responders from the eight communities that obtained risk management plans also believe hard copy delivery is adequate. Two communities noted that chemical inventory forms are easy to mark and distribute and easy to use in an emergency situation. Moreover, responders from three communities emphasized the importance of hard copy forms for local planners and responders who may not have access to computer terminals or necessary software. While many responders find the delivery of federally required information adequate, local responders from four communities would prefer to receive chemical inventory forms electronically, and responders from two communities would prefer to receive risk management plans electronically. Although local responders from seven communities manage their chemical information entirely in hard copy, responders from three communities manage it electronically by entering it into a computer database. In addition, four communities are designing or implementing programs to allow for electronic registering, management, and transmission of chemical information to responders. Local responders expressed interest in variations of electronic reporting. A responder from one community hopes to receive chemical information from facilities by E-mail. A responder from another community would like the information to be posted on a Web site from which responders could access it when needed. This responder believes that electronic access might allow facilities to more easily update data, thus allowing his response team to obtain current data more quickly. A responder from another community wants forms to be transmitted electronically to the response scene. Responders from two communities noted the need to secure information transmitted or posted on the Internet. Finally, responders from two of the same communities that preferred an electronic or combination format for storing and sharing information noted they would likely continue to use hard copy for reviewing information. Representatives of all eight national organizations that commented prefer electronic delivery, and representatives from several are concerned that local responders are not receiving chemical information electronically. A representative from the National Emergency Management Association believes that electronic data facilitates the movement of chemical information. Representatives from the National Volunteer Fire Council believe that forms need to be electronic to be useful. They consider hard copy reports extremely difficult for responders to manage given space limitations in the response vehicle and at the scene of an incident. A representative from the International Fire Marshals Association commented that he would prefer electronic reporting because data could be updated frequently to assist local responders. A representative from the International Association of Fire Fighters believes that chemical information should be managed electronically in a secure environment. EPA officials told us that the agency has undertaken several efforts to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act’s risk management program. Based on those efforts, EPA’s sense of the extent of compliance varied across the three risk management program requirements that we reviewed. For example, while the agency has had difficulty in identifying the universe of facilities required to file risk management plans, on the basis of outreach activities it has undertaken, the agency believes compliance with the registration requirement to be high. In contrast, EPA’s actions to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the registered risk management plans have been limited and, accordingly, the agency cannot be certain of the accuracy of most plans. Finally, EPA does not monitor the extent to which local responders have risk management plans, and therefore does not have a sense of the extent of compliance with this requirement. EPA officials told us that as the risk management program was first being implemented, they took significant steps to identify and notify facilities across the country that were potentially subject to the registration requirement. For example, EPA held outreach meetings and workshops to educate chemical facility representatives about program requirements and conducted mass mailings to facilities citing the types of facilities that should register risk management plans. The work to determine the universe of facilities required to register varied by region, but according to regional officials, it generally included the following efforts. Comparing lists of facilities that had registered risk management plans with existing federal chemical information databases, most commonly those containing information about facilities that had registered under EPCRA. Consulting telephone directories, library sources, and trade journals and speaking to groups representing small businesses. Contacting facilities that might need to register to determine if they were required to do so. According to the officials, these contacts identified few facilities that still needed to register risk management plans. Those that were identified usually submitted plans as a result of the contact or reduced their chemical inventories below the threshold to avoid having to register. An official in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance said that EPA had about 100 enforcement actions in process or completed as of September 30, 2001, most of which related to facilities failing to register risk management plans. Despite its efforts, EPA is uncertain of the number of facilities that are required to register. Before the June 21, 1999, deadline for registering risk management plans, EPA had estimated that about 64,000 facilities would need to register. Subsequently, the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act exempted most facilities that handled propane from the requirement to register plans. With this exemption, EPA refined its estimate to 33,000 facilities. About 15,000 facilities registered by the deadline. According to an EPA official, two factors, other than noncompliance, likely contributed to the difference between EPA’s estimate and the actual number of registrants. First, EPA may have overestimated the number of facilities subject to the regulation. Second, some facilities took actions to avoid being regulated under the program, such as reducing chemical inventory below the thresholds that trigger the reporting requirement, replacing a regulated chemical with one not covered by the requirement, or eliminating a particular regulated chemical. An EPA headquarters official from the office responsible for chemical preparedness noted that registering a risk management plan in and of itself does not necessarily indicate that a facility has undertaken all necessary actions. According to the official, the “paper plan” submitted to EPA captures certain details, but it is the underlying program elements, properly implemented, that protect the public from accidental chemical releases. He stated that there may be facilities that have registered plans with EPA but still have deficiencies in their underlying program. Although EPA had reviewed to varying degrees about 15 percent of the risk management plans registered as of the end of fiscal year 2001, the agency does not have a complete picture of the accuracy of most risk management plans. All risk management plans registered with EPA were electronically verified to check for completeness; if all data fields had entries, the plan was considered complete. After that check, EPA reviewed some of the plans for accuracy or internal consistency. As of September 30, 2001, EPA had reviewed about 2,200 of the approximately 15,000 registered plans for accuracy. These reviews consisted of about 1,500 desk audits of the plans and about 700 on-site inspections. According to an EPA official, the agency’s ability to perform more comprehensive reviews has been constrained by resources. Most regions performed some desk audits, which ranged from reviewing a few elements of the plans to reviewing the entire plan. Most EPA regional officials who performed desk audits said they used guidance issued by headquarters as a basis for their audits or as a supplement to their own procedures. Program auditors in most regions verified that data, such as reported chemical quantities and calculations, were accurate and also that facilities were coordinating with local responders. However, EPA regional officials approached verifying coordination with local responders in different ways. For example, some regional officials considered coordination to exist when a facility held public meetings to discuss its risk management plan with the community; others said that coordination had occurred only if the facility and the community participated in emergency exercises. These varying interpretations can lead to inconsistent compliance monitoring. While EPA has issued guidance to facilities on what constitutes coordination, it has not provided such guidance to the regions. Officials from all EPA regional offices told us that they had performed some on-site inspections of facilities that have registered risk management plans; however, the number performed in each region varied from 2 to 145. For example, officials from one region responsible for 1,217 risk management plans conducted 30 inspections and found one facility in violation because of a poor quality analysis of the impact on the surrounding community. Officials from another region, where 1,006 facilities registered risk management plans, conducted 105 inspections, finding varying levels of compliance; some facilities needed to update their training, others were not performing scheduled maintenance on equipment, and still others were not implementing the safety procedures listed in their risk management plans. These regional officials told us that all facilities, except one, took action to comply, and EPA filed an enforcement action against the remaining facility. To supplement its resources for carrying out compliance activities, EPA is considering using private sector EPA-certified auditors to assess the accuracy of risk management plan information. According to an EPA Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office official, EPA recently studied the viability of this approach. This official said that the results of the study were promising but that the details of the proposal are not yet complete. Such a proposal would require certified auditors to perform reviews at facilities that had volunteered for this program. The facilities would incur the inspection cost, but they would receive regulatory incentives if they maintained certain safety records. Agency officials have not yet agreed on what the incentives would be. According to an EPA official, the agency’s use of similar methods to meet other inspection requirements has improved safety at the facilities and limited the amount of EPA resources spent. EPA has encouraged states, counties, and cities to apply for the authority to monitor compliance with the risk management program. EPA officials told us that they had originally envisioned that more states and localities would accept responsibility for implementing the program, which they said would have given the agency a better sense of compliance with registration and the accuracy of information reported. However, only 16 locations received delegated authority as of February 28, 2002. While EPA has addressed facilities’ compliance with the registration and accuracy of risk management plans, the agency does not monitor the extent to which local responders have obtained plans. The Clean Air Act requires that risk management plans be submitted to local agencies or entities with responsibility for planning for or responding to accidental chemical releases, but the act does not specify how this is to be accomplished. EPA issued guidance in November 1999 that specified that local responders could obtain risk management plans—with the exception of certain sensitive data, such as specific information about the potential risks to a community—by visiting the agency Web site or by requesting the plans in their entirety from EPA. However, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, EPA removed the plans from its Web site. According to EPA officials, local responders are still able to request and obtain the plans from EPA, and the agency is currently deliberating whether to return the plans to the Web site. They also noted that both the general public and local responders have access to risk management plans through reading rooms managed by EPA and the Department of Justice and located in 55 major cities across the country and in U.S. territories and commonwealths. While EPA makes the plans available to local responders, it has taken no specific steps to ensure that local responders actually obtain them. EPA leaves the responsibility for obtaining plans to local responders. Responders from 8 of the 10 communities we contacted said that they have obtained the plans, or executive summaries of the plans, for almost all of the facilities in their communities directly from the facilities. According to a national survey contracted by EPA and conducted by The George Washington University in 1999, 73 percent of local responders that replied to the survey reported that they intended to obtain risk management plans directly from facilities in their communities. Local responders in two of the communities we contacted said they had not obtained the plans but knew where to get them if needed. Responders from one of these communities said that their state did not participate in the risk management program because it wanted to avoid legal liability if the plan’s sensitive data were to fall into the wrong hands. A study conducted by the National Institute for Chemical Studies found that local responders from most of the 32 communities they contacted did not obtain or maintain copies of the plans, but an institute representative clarified that these local responders knew how to obtain plans if needed. Representatives from national organizations expressed the following concerns about whether and how responders are obtaining plans. The representatives from the International Association of Fire Fighters and the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians doubt that all local responders actually obtain the plans. The representative from the International Fire Marshals Association, who is also an emergency responder, noted that he has plans only because he has sought them from facilities. The representative from the International Fire Marshals Association and the National Association of State Fire Marshals expressed concern that the local responders have to do so much work to obtain the plans. Representatives from the International Fire Marshals Association, the National Association of State Fire Marshals, the International Association of Fire Fighters, and the National Volunteer Fire Council commented that facility visits by local responders are critical to their obtaining complete chemical information. They also said that local responders do not receive all the plans because either the facilities are not sending them or the plans are becoming caught up in the local bureaucracy and not reaching the local responders. We provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment. The Director of EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office provided technical clarifications that we incorporated where appropriate. The Director also orally commented that the report fairly and accurately presented information about federally required chemical information and EPA’s actions to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act’s risk management provisions. We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 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 call me at (202) 512-6111. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. To provide the views of members of the emergency response community on the adequacy of (1) the information in federally required chemical inventory forms and risk management plans and (2) the manner in which that information is delivered, we interviewed 51 local emergency responders (emergency planners and fire fighters) from 10 out of almost 8,000 communities that have at least one chemical facility that registered a risk management plan. We chose the sample of communities to include a variety of concentrations of chemical facilities required to submit risk management plans in different parts of the country. We obtained a copy of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) RMP*Review, which is a database of risk management plans submitted to EPA, as of August 30, 2001; sorted the plans by city; and grouped the cities according to the numbers of chemical facilities that had registered plans in each. The groups were cities with 1 facility; 2 to 5 facilities; 6 to 10 facilities; 11 to 29 facilities; and 30 to 75 facilities. We chose two cities from each group using a random number table. When the two cities we chose for a group were in the same or an adjoining state, we discarded one and chose another to ensure geographic dispersion. This process resulted in the selection of the following 10 cities: Phoenix, Arizona; El Dorado, Arkansas; Shasta Lake, California; Orlando, Florida; Brownstown, Indiana; Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo, New Mexico; Buffalo, New York; Morrisville, Pennsylvania; Houston, Texas; and Wendover City, Utah. We contacted the local emergency planning committees that covered these cities, as well as local responders that the planning committees recommended. To obtain a national perspective, we interviewed representatives from seven national emergency response organizations, two chemical industry organizations, a federal agency with an interest in chemical emergency response, and one other organization. We chose most of these organizations because they represent responders, the chemical industry, or government officials who are concerned about emergency response. We chose others on the basis of recommendations from officials from EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office. The national organizations whose representatives provided opinions included the International Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Fire Fighters; the International Fire Marshals Association; the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians; the National Association of State Fire Marshals; the National Emergency Management Association; the National Volunteer Fire Council; the American Chemistry Council; The Chlorine Institute, Inc.; the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and the National Governors Association. Representatives from another five organizations—the International Association of Emergency Managers, the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration, the National Association of Chemical Distributors, the National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials, and the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Association—either did not have a national perspective on these issues or did not respond to our inquiries. To describe EPA’s efforts to ensure compliance with risk management plan provisions and its sense of compliance, we contacted officials from EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office, which is responsible for the overall implementation of the risk management plan program. We also contacted all 10 EPA regional offices, which are responsible for overseeing compliance, to obtain information on the reviews these offices had performed at chemical facilities. We also met with EPA officials from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to obtain enforcement action information and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response to obtain the agency’s RMP*Review database. We did not contact officials from the state and local governments to whom EPA had delegated authority for management of the risk management program. In addition to the name above, Jeanne Barger, Marwin Brown, Nancy Crothers, Paige Gilbreath, Luann Moy, Pauline Treviso, and Amy Webbink made key contributions to this report. | The United States has become increasingly aware of the need to be prepared for emergencies, including those involving hazardous chemicals. The local emergency responders and representatives from national organizations that GAO contacted have varied views on the adequacy of (1) information in chemical inventory forms and risk management plans and (2) the manner in which that information is delivered. Most members of the emergency response community believe that the manner of delivery of federally required information could be improved. Environmental Protection Agency officials cited their efforts to ensure compliance with provisions of the Clean Air Act's risk management program. However, their sense of the extent of compliance varies across three specific provisions; that is, the extent to which (1) facilities have registered risk management plans, (2) the plans contain accurate information, and (3) local responders are receiving the plans. |
It is a dark day for the rule of law. Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC , the London -based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system. They also have not charged any top HSBC banker in the case, though it boggles the mind that a bank could launder money as HSBC did without anyone in a position of authority making culpable decisions.
Clearly, the government has bought into the notion that too big to fail is too big to jail. When prosecutors choose not to prosecute to the full extent of the law in a case as egregious as this, the law itself is diminished. The deterrence that comes from the threat of criminal prosecution is weakened, if not lost.
In the HSBC case, prosecutors may want the public to focus on the $1.92 billion settlement, which includes forfeiture of $1.26 billion and other penalties, as well as requirements to improve its internal controls and submit to the oversight of an outside monitor for the next five years. But even large financial settlements are small compared with the size of international major banks. More important, once criminal sanctions are considered off limits, penalties and forfeitures become just another cost of doing business, a risk factor to consider on the road to profits.
There is no doubt that the wrongdoing at HSBC was serious and pervasive. Several foreign banks have been fined in recent years for flouting United States sanctions against transferring money through American subsidiaries on behalf of clients in countries like Iran , Sudan and Cuba . HSBC’s actions were even more egregious. According to several law enforcement officials with knowledge of the inquiry, prosecutors found that, for years, HSBC had also moved tainted money from Mexican drug cartels and Saudi banks with ties to terrorist groups.
Those findings echo those of a Congressional report, issued in July, which said that between 2001 and 2010, HSBC exposed the American “financial system to money laundering and terrorist financing risks.” Prosecutors and Congressional investigators were also alarmed by indications that senior HSBC officials might have been complicit in the illegal activity and that the bank did not tighten its lax controls against money laundering even after repeated urgings from federal officials.
Yet government officials will argue that it is counterproductive to levy punishment so severe that a bank could be destroyed in the process. That may be true as far as it goes. But if banks operating at the center of the global economy cannot be held fully accountable, the solution is to reduce their size by breaking them up and restricting their activities — not shield them and their leaders from prosecution for illegal activities. ||||| (updated below)
The US is the world's largest prison state, imprisoning more of its citizens than any nation on earth, both in absolute numbers and proportionally. It imprisons people for longer periods of time, more mercilessly, and for more trivial transgressions than any nation in the west. This sprawling penal state has been constructed over decades, by both political parties, and it punishes the poor and racial minorities at overwhelmingly disproportionate rates.
But not everyone is subjected to that system of penal harshness. It all changes radically when the nation's most powerful actors are caught breaking the law. With few exceptions, they are gifted not merely with leniency, but full-scale immunity from criminal punishment. Thus have the most egregious crimes of the last decade been fully shielded from prosecution when committed by those with the greatest political and economic power: the construction of a worldwide torture regime, spying on Americans' communications without the warrants required by criminal law by government agencies and the telecom industry, an aggressive war launched on false pretenses, and massive, systemic financial fraud in the banking and credit industry that triggered the 2008 financial crisis.
This two-tiered justice system was the subject of my last book, "With Liberty and Justice for Some", and what was most striking to me as I traced the recent history of this phenomenon is how explicit it has become. Obviously, those with money and power always enjoyed substantial advantages in the US justice system, but lip service was at least always paid to the core precept of the rule of law: that - regardless of power, position and prestige - all stand equal before the blindness of Lady Justice.
It really is the case that this principle is now not only routinely violated, as was always true, but explicitly repudiated, right out in the open. It is commonplace to hear US elites unblinkingly insisting that those who become sufficiently important and influential are - and should be - immunized from the system of criminal punishment to which everyone else is subjected.
Worse, we are constantly told that immunizing those with the greatest power is not for their good, but for our good, for our collective good: because it's better for all of us if society is free of the disruptions that come from trying to punish the most powerful, if we're free of the deprivations that we would collectively experience if we lose their extraordinary value and contributions by prosecuting them.
This rationale was popularized in 1974 when Gerald Ford explained why Richard Nixon - who built his career as a "law-and-order" politician demanding harsh punishments and unforgiving prosecutions for ordinary criminals - would never see the inside of a courtroom after being caught committing multiple felonies; his pardon was for the good not of Nixon, but of all of us. That was the same reasoning hauled out to justify immunity for officials of the National Security State who tortured and telecom giants who illegally spied on Americans (we need them to keep us safe and can't disrupt them with prosecutions), as well as the refusal to prosecute any Wall Street criminals for their fraud (prosecutions for these financial crimes would disrupt our collective economic recovery).
A new episode unveiled on Tuesday is one of the most vivid examples yet of this mentality. Over the last year, federal investigators found that one of the world's largest banks, HSBC, spent years committing serious crimes, involving money laundering for terrorists; "facilitat[ing] money laundering by Mexican drug cartels"; and "mov[ing] tainted money for Saudi banks tied to terrorist groups". Those investigations uncovered substantial evidence "that senior bank officials were complicit in the illegal activity." As but one example, "an HSBC executive at one point argued that the bank should continue working with the Saudi Al Rajhi bank, which has supported Al Qaeda."
Needless to say, these are the kinds of crimes for which ordinary and powerless people are prosecuted and imprisoned with the greatest aggression possible. If you're Muslim and your conduct gets anywhere near helping a terrorist group, even by accident, you're going to prison for a long, long time. In fact, powerless, obscure, low-level employees are routinely sentenced to long prison terms for engaging in relatively petty money laundering schemes, unrelated to terrorism, and on a scale that is a tiny fraction of what HSBC and its senior officials are alleged to have done.
But not HSBC. On Tuesday, not only did the US Justice Department announce that HSBC would not be criminally prosecuted, but outright claimed that the reason is that they are too important, too instrumental to subject them to such disruptions. In other words, shielding them from the system of criminal sanction to which the rest of us are subject is not for their good, but for our common good. We should not be angry, but grateful, for the extraordinary gift bestowed on the global banking giant:
"US authorities defended their decision not to prosecute HSBC for accepting the tainted money of rogue states and drug lords on Tuesday, insisting that a $1.9bn fine for a litany of offences was preferable to the 'collateral consequences' of taking the bank to court. . . . "Announcing the record fine at a press conference in New York, assistant attorney general Lanny Breuer said that despite HSBC"s 'blatant failure' to implement anti-money laundering controls and its wilful flouting of US sanctions, the consequences of a criminal prosecution would have been dire. "Had the US authorities decided to press criminal charges, HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking licence in the US, the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilised. "HSBC, Britain's biggest bank, said it was 'profoundly sorry' for what it called 'past mistakes' that allowed terrorists and narcotics traffickers to move billions around the financial system and circumvent US banking laws. . . . "As part of the deal, HSBC has undertaken a five-year agreement with the US department of justice under which it will install an independent monitor to assess reformed internal controls. The bank's top executives will defer part of their bonuses for the whole of the five-year period, while bonuses have been clawed back from a number of former and current executives, including those in the US directly involved at the time. "John Coffee, a professor of law at Columbia Law School in New York, said the fine was consistent with how US regulators have been treating bank infractions in recent years. 'These days they rarely sue individuals in any meaningful way when the entity will settle. This is largely a function of resource constraints, but also risk aversion, and a willingness to take the course of least resistance,' he said."
DOJ officials touted the $1.9 billion fine HSBC would pay, the largest ever for such a case. As the Guardian's Nils Pratley noted, "the sum represents about four weeks' earnings given the bank's pre-tax profits of $21.9bn last year." Unsurprisingly, "the steady upward progress of HSBC's share price since the scandal exploded in July was unaffected on Tuesday morning."
The New York Times Editors this morning announced: "It is a dark day for the rule of law." There is, said the NYT editors, "no doubt that the wrongdoing at HSBC was serious and pervasive." But the bank is simply too big, too powerful, too important to prosecute.
That's not merely a dark day for the rule of law. It's a wholesale repudiation of it. The US government is expressly saying that banking giants reside outside of - above - the rule of law, that they will not be punished when they get caught red-handed committing criminal offenses for which ordinary people are imprisoned for decades. Aside from the grotesque injustice, the signal it sends is as clear as it is destructive: you are free to commit whatever crimes you want without fear of prosecution. And obviously, if the US government would not prosecute these banks on the ground that they're too big and important, it would - yet again, or rather still - never let them fail.
But this case is the opposite of an anomaly. That the most powerful actors should be immunized from the rule of law - not merely treated better, but fully immunized - is a constant, widely affirmed precept in US justice. It's applied to powerful political and private sector actors alike. Over the past four years, the CIA and NSA have received the same gift, as have top Executive Branch officials, as has the telecom industry, as has most of the banking industry. This is how I described it in "With Liberty and Justice for Some":
"To hear our politicians and our press tell it, the conclusion is inescapable: we're far better off when political and financial elites - and they alone - are shielded from criminal accountability. "It has become a virtual consensus among the elites that their members are so indispensable to the running of American society that vesting them with immunity from prosecution - even for the most egregious crimes - is not only in their interest but in our interest, too. Prosecutions, courtrooms, and prisons, it's hinted - and sometimes even explicitly stated - are for the rabble, like the street-side drug peddlers we occasionally glimpse from our car windows, not for the political and financial leaders who manage our nation and fuel our prosperity. "It is simply too disruptive, distracting, and unjust, we are told, to subject them to the burden of legal consequences."
That is precisely the rationale explicitly invoked by DOJ officials to justify their decision to protect HSBC from criminal accountability. These are the same officials who previously immunized Bush-era torturers and warrantless eavesdroppers, telecom giants, and Wall Street executives, even as they continue to persecute whistleblowers at record rates and prosecute ordinary citizens - particularly poor and minorities - with extreme harshness even for trivial offenses. The administration that now offers the excuse that HSBC is too big to prosecute is the same one that quite consciously refused to attempt to break up these banks in the aftermath of the "too-big-to-fail" crisis of 2008, as former TARP overseer Neil Barofsky, among others, has spent years arguing.
And, of course, these HSBC-protectors in the Obama DOJ are the same officials responsible for maintaining and expanding what NYT Editorial Page editor Andrew Rosenthal has accurately described as "essentially a separate justice system for Muslims," one in which "the principle of due process is twisted and selectively applied, if it is applied at all." What has been created is not so much a "two-tiered justice system" as a multi-tiered one, entirely dependent on the identity of the alleged offender rather than the crimes of which they are accused.
Having different "justice systems" for citizens based on their status, wealth, power and prestige is exactly what the US founders argued most strenuously had to be avoided (even as they themselves maintained exactly such a system). But here we have in undeniable clarity not merely proof of exactly how this system functions, but also the rotted and fundamentally corrupt precept on which it's based: that some actors are simply too important and too powerful to punish criminally. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz warned in 2010, exempting the largest banks from criminal prosecution has meant that lawlessness and "venality" is now "at a higher level" in the US even than that which prevailed in the pervasively corrupt and lawless privatizing era in Russia.
Having the US government act specially to protect the most powerful factions, particularly banks, was a major impetus that sent people into the streets protesting both as part of the early Tea Party movement as well as the Occupy movement. As well as it should: it is truly difficult to imagine corruption and lawlessness more extreme than having the government explicitly place the most powerful factions above the rule of law even as it continues to subject everyone else to disgracefully harsh "justice". If this HSBC gift makes more manifest this radical corruption, then it will at least have achieved some good.
UPDATE
By coincidence, on the very same day that the DOJ announced that HSBC would not be indicted for its multiple money-laundering felonies, the New York Times published a story featuring the harrowing story of an African-American single mother of three who was sentenced to life imprisonment at the age of 27 for a minor drug offense:
"Stephanie George and Judge Roger Vinson had quite different opinions about the lockbox seized by the police from her home in Pensacola. She insisted she had no idea that a former boyfriend had hidden it in her attic. Judge Vinson considered the lockbox, containing a half-kilogram of cocaine, to be evidence of her guilt. "But the defendant and the judge fully agreed about the fairness of the sentence he imposed in federal court. "'Even though you have been involved in drugs and drug dealing,' Judge Vinson told Ms. George, 'your role has basically been as a girlfriend and bag holder and money holder but not actively involved in the drug dealing, so certainly in my judgment it does not warrant a life sentence.' "Yet the judge had no other option on that morning 15 years ago. As her stunned family watched, Ms. George, then 27, who had never been accused of violence, was led from the courtroom to serve a sentence of life without parole. "'I remember my mom crying out and asking the Lord why,' said Ms. George, now 42, in an interview at the Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee. 'Sometimes I still can't believe myself it could happen in America.'"
As the NYT notes - and read her whole story to get the full flavor of it - this is commonplace for the poor and for minorities in the US justice system. Contrast that deeply oppressive, merciless punishment system with the full-scale immunity bestowed on HSBC - along with virtually every powerful and rich lawbreaking faction in America over the last decade - and that is the living, breathing two-tiered US justice system. How this glaringly disparate, and explicitly status-based, treatment under the criminal law does not produce serious social unrest is mystifying. ||||| It is a dark day for the rule of law. Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC , the London -based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system. They also have not charged any top HSBC banker in the case, though it boggles the mind that a bank could launder money as HSBC did without anyone in a position of authority making culpable decisions.
Clearly, the government has bought into the notion that too big to fail is too big to jail. When prosecutors choose not to prosecute to the full extent of the law in a case as egregious as this, the law itself is diminished. The deterrence that comes from the threat of criminal prosecution is weakened, if not lost.
In the HSBC case, prosecutors may want the public to focus on the $1.92 billion settlement, which includes forfeiture of $1.26 billion and other penalties, as well as requirements to improve its internal controls and submit to the oversight of an outside monitor for the next five years. But even large financial settlements are small compared with the size of international major banks. More important, once criminal sanctions are considered off limits, penalties and forfeitures become just another cost of doing business, a risk factor to consider on the road to profits.
There is no doubt that the wrongdoing at HSBC was serious and pervasive. Several foreign banks have been fined in recent years for flouting United States sanctions against transferring money through American subsidiaries on behalf of clients in countries like Iran , Sudan and Cuba . HSBC’s actions were even more egregious. According to several law enforcement officials with knowledge of the inquiry, prosecutors found that, for years, HSBC had also moved tainted money from Mexican drug cartels and Saudi banks with ties to terrorist groups.
Those findings echo those of a Congressional report, issued in July, which said that between 2001 and 2010, HSBC exposed the American “financial system to money laundering and terrorist financing risks.” Prosecutors and Congressional investigators were also alarmed by indications that senior HSBC officials might have been complicit in the illegal activity and that the bank did not tighten its lax controls against money laundering even after repeated urgings from federal officials.
Yet government officials will argue that it is counterproductive to levy punishment so severe that a bank could be destroyed in the process. That may be true as far as it goes. But if banks operating at the center of the global economy cannot be held fully accountable, the solution is to reduce their size by breaking them up and restricting their activities — not shield them and their leaders from prosecution for illegal activities. | The Obama administration officially bought into the idea that big banks are "too big to jail" yesterday, by deciding to fine HSBC instead of criminally prosecuting its vast money laundering operation—which funneled cash to Mexican drug cartels and Saudi banks with ties to al-Qaeda. The stated reason? The White House thought prosecution would upset markets. "It is a dark day for the rule of law," the New York Times laments in an editorial today. If prosecutors can't pursue "a case as egregious as this, the law itself is diminished." Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian is even more outraged, pointing out that "the US is the world's largest prison state, imprisoning more of its citizens than any nation on Earth." The poor, and racial minorities in particular are locked up at an astonishing rate, often for minor drug offenses. Yet HSBC gets off the hook. "It is truly difficult to imagine corruption and lawlessness more extreme than having the government explicitly place the most powerful factions above the rule of law." Click for Greenwald's full column, or the Times' editorial. |
When the President declares a major disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the disaster declaration designates the types of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance to be provided. There are three primary types of assistance: Public Assistance (PA), which addresses repairs to a community and state or tribal government infrastructure; Mitigation Assistance (MA), which provides funding for projects a state or tribe proposes to reduce the threat of future damage; and Individual Assistance (IA), which provides help to individuals and households affected by a major disaster. While all major disaster declarations include MA, FEMA uses information on a range of "factors" from the Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) to determine whether PA and/or IA should be recommended. Following Hurricane Sandy, Congress required FEMA to revise and update the factors it considers when making a recommendation to the President regarding whether a major disaster declaration should include IA or not. This report provides information on FEMA's IA programs and the factors FEMA uses to determine if IA should be part of a disaster declaration. FEMA considers numerous factors (detailed later in this report) when it recommends IA to the President following a major disaster. IA can include several programs, depending on whether the governor of the affected state or the tribal leader requests that specific type of FEMA assistance. FEMA's IA includes (1) Mass Care and Emergency Assistance, (2) Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program, (3) Disaster Unemployment Assistance, (4) Disaster Legal Services, (5) Disaster Case Management, and (6) the Individuals and Households Program. 1. Mass Care includes directly supporting congregate sheltering, feeding, and hydration; distributing emergency supplies; and reuniting children with their parents/legal guardians, as well as adults with their families. Emergency Assistance encompasses a variety of services and functions, including coordination of volunteer organizations and unsolicited donations, managing unaffiliated volunteers and community relief services, supporting transitional sheltering, and supporting mass evacuations. 2. The Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program assists individuals and communities recovering from the effects of a disaster through community-based outreach and psycho-educational services. The program supports short-term counseling of disaster survivors. The program also provides information on coping strategies and emotional support by linking survivors with other individuals and agencies that help them in the recovery process. 3. Disaster Unemployment Assistance provides information and resources to individuals who were employed or self-employed, or were scheduled to begin employment during a disaster. It may also be provided to those who can no longer work or perform their job duties due to damage to their place of employment, do not qualify for regular unemployment benefits from a state, or cannot perform work or self-employment due to an injury as a direct result of a disaster. 4. Disaster Legal Services provides legal assistance to low-income individuals who are unable to secure adequate legal services that meet their disaster-related needs. 5. Disaster Case Management provides a partnership between a case manager and the disaster survivor to assist them in carrying out a disaster recovery plan. The recovery plan includes resources, services, decisionmaking priorities, progress reports, and the goals needed to close their case. 6. Individuals and Households Program is comprised of two categories of assistance: Housing Assistance and Other Needs Assistance (ONA). Housing Assistance may include financial assistance to reimburse for hotels, motels, or other short-term lodging; rent alternate housing accommodations while the applicant is displaced from their primary residence; repair a primary residence; assist in replacing owner-occupied residences when the residence is destroyed; and enter into lease agreements with owners of multifamily rental properties located in the disaster area. Housing Assistance may also include home repair and construction services provided in insular areas outside the continental United States and other locations where no alternative housing resources are available and where types of FEMA housing assistance that are normally provided (such as rental assistance) are unavailable, infeasible, or not cost-effective. FEMA may provide manufactured housing units as a form of temporary housing through its Transitional Sheltering Assistance program. Other Needs Assistance provides financial assistance for other disaster-related expenses and needs. These include child care; medical and dental expenses; funeral and burial costs; and transportation. IA accounted for approximately 14.4% of all projected federal spending ($9.1 billion of $63.2 billion) from the Disaster Relief Fund for Stafford Act declarations occurring from FY2007 through FY2016, according to FEMA data as of August 10, 2017. Some types of FEMA IA are subject to cost sharing, such as ONA, which is subject to a cost share between FEMA and the state, territorial, or tribal government. FEMA covers 75% of eligible ONA costs, and the state, territorial, or tribal government is responsible for the remaining 25%. Transitional Sheltering under Mass Care and Emergency Assistance is also subject to a 75/25 percent cost share. The factors FEMA uses to determine potential IA for disaster survivors have not been changed since originally published in 1999. The factors include concentration of damages —FEMA evaluates the concentrations of damages to individuals, and high concentrations of damages generally indicate a greater need for federal assistance than widespread or scattered damages throughout an area, region, or state; trauma —FEMA considers the degree of trauma to a state and communities, and some of the conditions that might cause such trauma include large numbers of injuries and death, large-scale disruption of normal community functions and services, and emergency needs such as extended or widespread loss of power or water; special populations —FEMA considers whether special populations, such as low-income, the elderly, or the unemployed are affected, and whether they may have a greater need for assistance; voluntary agency assistance —FEMA considers the extent to which voluntary agencies and state or local programs can meet the needs of the disaster victims; insurance —FEMA considers the amount of insurance coverage in the disaster area because, by law, federal disaster assistance cannot duplicate insurance coverage; and average amount of individual assistance by state —FEMA's regulations state that "[t]here is no set threshold for recommending Individual Assistance, but the following averages [see Table 1 ] may prove useful to States and voluntary agencies as they develop plans and programs to meet the needs of disaster victims." When reviewing disaster declarations between January 2008 and July 2013, FEMA found that requests with more than $7.5 million in assistance usually resulted in a declaration for IA. However, FEMA has not suggested using that amount as a threshold for assistance. Instead, it is providing several factors that relate directly to the Individual and Household Program (IHP), which is the primary IA program. In addition, other factors may provide greater detail for decisionmakers for IHP and for other prominent IA programs such as Crisis Counseling and Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA). In response to congressional direction for updated IA factors, FEMA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on November 12, 2015. FEMA published the proposed rule on November 12, 2016, and was accepting comments until January 11, 2016. FEMA has yet to finalize the proposed rule. The new proposed factors are state fiscal capacity and resource availability; uninsured home and personal property losses; disaster-impacted population profile; impact to community infrastructure; casualties; and disaster-related unemployment. FEMA proposed using three factors to evaluate a state and local jurisdiction's fiscal capacity: the total tax revenue of the state (a measurement recommended by the U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO]), the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by state, and the per-capita personal income by local area. Using those factors, along with the projected IA costs, FEMA would then develop Individual Assistance Cost to Capacity (ICC) ratios. As mentioned earlier, the estimates of potential FEMA assistance costs are generally derived from Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs) that are conducted after an event to help both the state and federal governments evaluate the situation. Using figures from this process for 153 major disaster declaration requests between January of 2008 and July of 2013, FEMA found that generally, the higher the ICC ratio, the more likely that IA was part of a major disaster declaration. FEMA emphasized that the proposed approach would not be a hard "threshold," nor did it anticipate incorporating it into its regulations because one single factor would not determine each decision on recommendations to the President. A hard "threshold" was a recommendation of some FEMA stakeholders. It is likely they wanted to see a number comparable to the per capita amount employed as a factor for PA declarations. However, in response to that request, FEMA invoked Section 320 of the Stafford Act and suggested it chose not to violate the principles of Section 320. That section forbids a denial of assistance based solely (emphasis added) on an "arithmetic formula." While some formulas have been routinely used by FEMA in the process of making recommendations, according to FEMA, formulas have only been one factor among several considered. Instead, FEMA indicates its desire that such formulas, when used as a part of the PDA process, would influence a state's decision on whether to make a request, but would not remove the state's discretion. FEMA's proposal offered more detail than previously available regarding state capacity, the tools FEMA may employ to consider individual state resources, and FEMA's own approach to assessing that capacity. But the proposed ICC and other factors raise questions as to how various factors may or may not be weighted in importance when considering a governor's request. In addition, the proposed factors appeared to relate directly to current IA programs such as Disaster Unemployment Assistance and Crisis Counseling. The proposed rule also appeared to encourage the development of state programs that might replicate or complement FEMA-style assistance to families and individuals at the state level. It could be argued that such programs at the state level could be of assistance when federal supplemental help is not contemplated. At this time there is no information on when FEMA intends to finalize this proposed rule on revising IA factors. | When the President declares a major disaster pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) advises the President about types of federal assistance administered by FEMA available to disaster victims, states, localities, and tribes. The primary types of assistance provided under a major disaster declaration include funding through the Public Assistance program, Mitigation Assistance programs, and the Individual Assistance program. The Public Assistance program provides federal financial assistance to repair and rebuild damaged facilities and infrastructure. Mitigation Assistance programs provide funding for jurisdictions, states, and tribes to ensure damaged facilities and infrastructure are rebuilt and reinforced to better withstand future disaster damage. Finally, the Individual Assistance program provides funding for basic needs for individuals and households following a disaster. Eligible activities under the Individual Assistance program include funding for such things as mass care, crisis counseling, and temporary housing. FEMA advises the President on the type of individual assistance to be granted following each disaster, and works with state and local authorities in determining what assistance programs would best suit the needs within the disaster area. FEMA makes this determination based on a list of criteria designed to align federal disaster assistance with unmet needs in disaster-impacted areas. This report provides a short summary of the types of individual assistance programs administered by FEMA following a disaster. This report also provides a summary of the criteria FEMA uses in determining which individual assistance programs may be made available to impacted areas following a major disaster declaration, and discusses a proposed rule to change these criteria. |
What appears to be court stenographer’s note appears online after Mr Justice Peter Smith stands up for airline passengers everywhere
A document appearing to be the full transcript of a judge’s bench badgering of British Airways over his lost luggage has emerged.
Fleet Street last week cast the Chancery Court’s Mr Justice Peter Smith — whom The Times newspaper described as “one of the legal profession’s more colourful figures” — as the common air travellers hero after he castigated lawyers for the “world’s favourite airline”.
But the bench-slapping had nothing to do with their submissions in the £3 billion lawsuit Smith was hearing — a spat in which BA was accused of colluding to fix air cargo charges. Instead it related to an entirely unrelated incident which had seen Smith’s luggage go missing on a BA flight during a recent trip to Italy.
Legal Cheek cannot verify the authenticity of the document that is doing the rounds of legal London. However, it appears to be a comprehensive transcript of the court stenographer’s note.
Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways
Taking the brunt of Smith’s ire was Jon Turner, a silk of nine years’ standing from Monkton Chambers in Gray’s Inn. As BA’s lead counsel on the day, Turner came in for repeated questioning regarding the loss of Smith’s luggage during his recent trip Florence.
At one stage the judge threatened to haul BA’s pugnacious Irish chief executive, Willie Walsh, before the court to answer some pretty searching questions on the missing luggage front. Sadly that didn’t happen, as it would have been one hell of a bout.
Now, Smith is no stranger to courtroom antics. The judge once famously inserted his own coded message into a judgment he handed down on a copyright case concerning best-selling thriller novel “The Da Vince Code”.
In the most recent case, according to the transcript, Smith repeatedly cross-examined BA’s lawyers about the lost luggage, while, in turn, they desperately tried to bring the proceedings back to the matter of the trial.
In the end, frustrated lawyers, who included the airline’s law firm, Slaughter and May (whose partners presumably know a thing or two about international holiday travel), applied for Smith to recuse himself. The grounds were clear: anyone so arsed off with one of the litigants — no matter how legitimately in a customer service context — would not be able to hear case impartially.
Smith adamantly disagreed, but he stood down nonetheless. He didn’t go quietly, telling the court:
I do not believe for one minute that the reasonably minded observer … would think that merely because I have raised issues over the non-delivery of my luggage of itself should lead to the possibility of bias. I believe a reasonably minded observer would see a judge with a problem trying to resolve that issue and finding the parting question being obstructive and unwilling to address the issue and find a solution. A simple dispute as to the luggage cannot possible be grounds for recusal. However, BA and its solicitors have simply escalated the problem almost immediately.
Nonetheless, Smith saw the writing on the wall in terms of public perception:
I however cannot allow my presence in the case and its difficulties to distract the parties from this case. And therefore, regretfully, I feel that I have no choice, whatever my feelings about it, but to recuse myself from the case …
BA’s legal team will be relieved. The rest of us will still shed a tiny tear as the case of Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways is destined to be a damn sight less entertaining than it was a week ago.
Read the judgment in full below:
Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways ||||| Mr Justice Peter Smith was furious at BA after his luggage went missing on a flight from Florence Tim Boyle/Getty Images
The judge who stepped down from a £3 billion dispute involving British Airways after complaining about his lost luggage is being investigated by judicial conduct authorities.
Mr Justice Peter Smith fired off angry emails to British Airways after his luggage failed to arrive at Gatwick after a trip to Florence — and then berated counsel when the dispute came before him in court.
He agreed to step down from the case after BA’s legal team, led by Jon Turner, QC, raised questions of bias in court last week, and applied for him to stand aside.
Another judge, Mrs Justice Rose, has now been appointed to succeed Mr Justice Peter Smith on the mammoth dispute which relates to a 2010 European Commission ruling that BA and… ||||| The behaviour of Mr Justice Peter Smith, who reluctantly agreed to step aside from the case last week after BA’s lawyers complained of “a real risk of bias”, has now been revealed in full after a transcript of the court exchanges was posted online.
The document, which The Independent has confirmed is accurate, shows how the judge subjected the airline’s legal counsel Jon Turner QC to a barrage of questions about the whereabouts of his luggage, which had been mislaid during a trip to Florence with his wife.
“Right, Mr Turner, here is a question for you. What happened to [the] luggage?” the judge asks a few minutes into the hearing. When the QC replies that his clients do not want to get involved in the issue, he shoots back: “In that case, do you want me to order your chief executive to appear before me today?”
Justice Peter Smith emailed the BA chairman personally to complain about his lost luggage. File photo (Getty)
After Mr Turner delicately suggests that doing so would be “an inappropriate mixture of a personal dispute” with the multi-billion pound case, the judge cuts him off. “What is inappropriate is the continued failure of your clients to explain a simple question: namely, what happened to the luggage? It has been two weeks since that happened now,” he says.
A lengthy debate follows, culminating in Mr Justice Smith darkly suggesting that BA is fighting to have him recused because the airline is worried that the case is not going in its favour. “The next judge might not be on your solicitors’ acceptable judge list,” he says.
After a break in which Mr Turner contacts his instructing solicitor – before regretfully informing the judge that “she does not know what has happened to your luggage” – Mr Justice Smith says he has “no alternative” but to recuse himself.
A spokesman for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, which handles complaints about the judiciary, said that Sir Peter was being “investigated under the conduct regulations”. Mrs Justice Vivien Rose has been appointed to hear the case in his place.
The remarkable courtroom exchanges took place during one of the biggest competition battles to reach the UK courts. The case stems from a European Commission ruling that BA and a number of other airlines colluded to fix air cargo charges, with the firms now being sued by hundreds of companies for losses and damages.
Will Gant, a reporter for the specialist legal magazine PaRR, witnessed the judge’s outburst. “I’ve been a court journalist for several years, and must have seen thousands of hearings, but frankly I was absolutely blown away by the unprofessional attitude that Mr Justice Peter Smith displayed at this one,” he told The Independent.
“The room was packed with dozens of lawyers, and two or three reporters from specialist legal publications, and as this unfolded we all silently exchanged looks of complete amazement. I’ve never seen a judge allow their personal life to affect their work like this, and it was sad to watch. It was an embarrassment to British justice.”
Another source familiar with the case added: “Frankly, it’s the sort of thing you might expect in other areas of the world, but not here.”
In a parting shot, Mr Justice Smith then used a written judgment to chastise BA still further, suggesting that his luggage and that of his fellow passengers had been “deliberately bumped off for a more profitable cargo”. He had emailed BA’s chairman, Keith Williams, because he felt the incident “might be something that is strikingly similar to some of the allegations in this case”, he wrote.
He continued: “I do not believe for one minute that the reasonably minded observer…would think that merely because I have raised issues over the non delivery of my luggage of itself should lead to the possibility of bias.” He also warned BA that he would continue his investigation into what happened to the bags “in a private capacity” and “with the vigour for which I am known”.
Both British Airways and its legal advisers, Slaughter & May, declined to comment.
Court records: Out of order
According to a transcript, Mr Justice Peter Smith repeatedly harangued the British Airways barrister Jon Turner QC about what happened to his missing luggage. Here are some edited extracts:
Mr Justice Peter Smith: Right, Mr Turner, here is a question for you. What happened to [the] luggage?
Jon Turner: My Lord, the position remains that set out in the letter from Slaughter and May of 15 July, that we are not dealing with that as parties in these proceedings.
PS: I am asking you: what has happened to the luggage?
JT: My Lord, so far as the parties to these proceedings … are concerned, we have said, and we maintain, that we are not getting involved because we trust that that will be dealt with expeditiously, in the ordinary course of events.
PS: In that case, do you want me to order your chief executive to appear before me today?
JT: I do not wish your Lordship to do that; and I would say, if your Lordship will permit me to develop my submissions, that that would be an inappropriate mixture of a personal dispute ...
PS: What is inappropriate is the continued failure of your clients to explain a simple question, namely, what happened to the luggage? It has been two weeks since that happened now....
JT: Our position, my Lord, is that where your Lordship initiates a personal dispute with British Airways…
PS: I didn’t initiate a personal dispute. BA’s associated company retained my luggage. It is not my fault that that happened. I am the victim. I read the whole of your correspondence. The more I read it, I got the impression that BA was trying to portray itself of the victim of this case and being oppressed by wicked Mr Justice Peter Smith. It is just ridiculous...
PS: As far as I am concerned, the key fact in this case is: what happened to the luggage; and your clients know what happened to the luggage and they are not telling me. And your solicitors and you are deliberately not asking...
PS: If there is a perfectly understandable operational reason as to why the whole of the flight’s luggage was left behind in Florence ... then I will accept that. That has been my stance ever since I contacted the chairman. I contacted the chairman because the BA helpline is misdescribed. Because when I contacted them, they said, “It is nothing to do with us, it is down to Vueling [BA’s Spanish partner airline]”, despite the fact that I booked my flight with BA and BA took my money. The Vueling helpline was even worse. They couldn’t even tell me where the luggage was till it, without warning, spontaneously arrived at my house last Thursday. In those circumstances, I went to the BA website and the BA website says the chairman is anxious to have comments from customers, and there is his email address, so I sent him an email. Apparently he likes reading customers’ emails. It doesn’t appear to be necessarily he does anything about it, but he obviously likes reading them over his breakfast...
PS: BA as a group, as a company in a group, clearly know what happened to the luggage, because ... they cannot have accidentally left the whole of the flight’s luggage off the plane, can they? I mean, I am intrigued. It might be for some reason they only had three gallons of fuel in the plane, it would run out unless they took everything off, which is a bit difficult because the plane was actually being refuelled when we got there. But equally, it is impossible to believe that the pilot, who has to sign the documentation as to what is the weight and composition of the weight in the plane, did not know that his hold was empty; and it is equally impossible for the ground staff not to know that the luggage was not there. These are things which, I accept, I am struggling to find a rational explanation for. ||||| A judge has agreed to step down from a case after complaining his luggage had gone missing during a BA flight while he was presiding over an unrelated dispute involving the same airline.
Mr Justice Peter Smith, one of the country’s most senior judges, withdrew from the £3 billion case amid accusations of bias, after he raised the matter of his missing luggage in his own court room.
A new judge will now be appointed to preside over the case, over a European Commission ruling that BA was guilty of colluding to fix air cargo charges.
The High Court judge was hearing a dispute involving BA, tens of thousands of firms and 30 other airlines, which dates back to 2006,
By coincide he had sent emails to BA’s chairman using his judicial title after his baggage went missing on a recent trip to Italy, in which he accused airline staff of deliberately leaving behind all the plane’s luggage and deceiving passengers.
The judge’s bags ‘spontaneously’ turned up at his home last week.
But Mr Justice Smith went on to raise the matter in court, threatening to order BA’s chief executive to appear in front of him to explain how a whole aeroplane’s luggage could go missing
He told BA’s legal team, led by Jon Turner QC: “Right, Mr Turner, here is a question for you: what happened to [the] luggage?”
But when the barrister replied that they were not dealing with that issue Mr Justice Smith persisted with his line of questioning, saying: “I am asking you – what has happened to the luggage?”
Mr Turner again declined to address his request, at which point Mr Justice Smith warned: “In that case, do you want me to order your chief executive to appear before me today?”
Despite being told it would not be appropriate to discuss a personal dispute, the judge persisted: “What is inappropriate is the continued failure of your clients to explain a simple question, namely, what happened to the luggage? It has been two weeks since that happened.”
He added: “I do not believe for a minute that the reasonably-minded observer would think that merely because I had raised issues about the non-delivery of my luggage, that it should raise the possibility of bias.”
But when BA’s legal team applied for the judge to stand aside Mr Justice Smith he agreed.
One of the legal circuit’s more colourful characters Mr Justice Smith once hid a message in a High Court judgment relating to the Da Vinci Code copyright trial.
In 2006, he ruled in favour of the novel’s author, Dan Brown, after rival authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh sued publisher Random House, claiming he had stolen their ideas.
Italicised letters in the first seven paragraphs of the judgment spelt out ‘Smithy Code’ in a reference to his own name.
Other apparently randomly italicised letters read: “Jackie Fisher, who are you? Dreadnought”. This appeared to relate to one of the judge’s own interests – Admiral Lord Fisher, who designed the battleship HMS Dreadnought.
It was thought to be the first time that a message had been hidden in a formal High Court judgment.
Mr Justice Smith refused to confirm that the letters were a code at the time, saying only: “They don't look like typos, do they? I can't discuss the judgment, but I don't see why a judgment should not be a matter of fun.”
In May this year Mr Justice Smith blamed a father for the horrific injuries that led to the death of the man's baby daughter, even though the man was cleared by a jury.
He lifted the normal anonymity rules that apply to family court judgments to name Martin Thomas, 30, as responsible for brutal attacks on four-month-old Evie Thomas from Wigan, Greater Manchester.
The judge said the law would be “a screen to hide the truth” if the father was allowed to remain unnamed.
In 2010 Mr Justice Smith was due to oversee a £100million trial over the controversial Chelsea Barracks development, but was replaced at the last moment after reportedly upsetting the Qatari royal family.
He had overseen the pre-trial hearings involving Qatari Diar, the property arm of the Qatari royal family, which was sued by Christian Candy, a London property tycoon, for breach of contract.
But the Qataris were said to be upset when a number of decisions went against them.
It was later ruled that the royal family's property company had breached its contract when it withdrew a planning application for the £3bn Chelsea barracks development after the intervention of Prince Charles. | Anyone whose luggage has been lost by an airline now has a patron saint in the form of Justice Peter Smith in Britain. When lawyers for British Airways showed up in his court to argue a $4.6 billion price-fixing case, Smith had smaller fish to fry: He wanted to know why the airline lost his luggage on a recent trip to Italy, reports the Legal Cheek blog. The questioning of BA counsel Jon Turner is priceless, as relayed by the Independent: "Mr Turner, here is a question for you. What happened to [the] luggage?” When Turner replies that they're actually in court for a different matter, Smith won't be put off: “In that case, do you want me to order your chief executive to appear before me today?” Turner again tries to deflect the questioning, but Smith responds, “What is inappropriate is the continued failure of your clients to explain a simple question: namely, what happened to the luggage? It has been two weeks since that happened now." This goes on for a while, and the BA lawyers ask Smith to recuse himself from the case they're supposed to be arguing because he's biased. Smith reluctantly agrees to do so. Entertaining yes, but whether it was good judgeship remains to be seen—the Times of London reports that judicial conduct authorities are investigating. The same judge once inserted a secret message ("Smithy Code") into his ruling in a copyright case involving the Da Vinci Code, notes the Telegraph. (If you'd like to be berated by an American judge, try this.) |
A second-grader was stabbed by a man on the playground of World of Wonder school May 6, 2016, in Dayton. (Caroline Reinwald/Staff)
Extra security in place at World of Wonder after Friday stabbing incident
Breaking News Staff
A reward is being offered to anyone who provides information that leads to the arrest of the man accused of stabbing a 7-year-old girl on the playground at World of Wonder school.
Surveillance video released of stabbing incident
School board mulls fencing at school, a reward for arrest
Search continues for male suspect
If you have info, call 333-COPS or 222-STOP
UPDATE @ 10:06 a.m. (June 3):
Dayton police Lt. Andrew Booher offered some updates in the case of a 7-year-old stabbed on a school playground May 6.
“At this point in investigation we’re at a stone wall,” Booher said, who added initially lots of tips from the public came in. “We need more information coming in now.”
A light-skinned black male in his early 20s approached the World of Wonder school playground from the tree line, pushed the small girl off the swing and stabbed her, Booher said. The man was wearing a beige hooded sweatshirt, orange T-shirt and blue shorts.
“The man was either dropped off or walked up,” Booher said.
UPDATE @ 12:06 p.m. (June 1):
A reward for information leading to an arrest in this stabbing has increased to $7,000 by management of Dayton Airport Hampton Inn in Englewood and Meadowbrook Crossing Shopping Center in Clayton, said Brad Smith, a lawyer representing the two businesses.
“They were terribly troubled by heinous acts of violence against an innocent child,” Smith said.
Information regarding reward should still be inquired through Dayton Public Schools.
UPDATE @ 1:41 p.m. (May 27):
The reward for information that leads to the conviction of the individual who attacked a second-grade student on the playground of World of Wonder school May 6 has exceeded its goal, according to school officials.
The Dayton Airport Hampton Inn donated $5,000 to the fund, the district said.
Dayton Public Schools is working with Crime Stoppers and anyone with information can contact Crime Stoppers anonymously at 222-STOP.
UPDATE @ 4:37 p.m. (May 20):
Dayton police released surveillance footage today from outside the World of Wonder School that shows the assailant approaching the swing set area; then after the stabbing occurs, the video resumes and shows folks running from the area. The video also shows people tending to the 7-year-old stabbing victim.
UPDATE @ 12:27 p.m. (May 17):
Dayton Public Schools is offering a minimum of a $5,000 reward for information that leads to the conviction of the individual who attacked a second-grade student on the playground at World of Wonder PreK-8 School on May 6.
Jyllian Guerriero, legal counsel for Dayton Public Schools, said the reward money is all privately-raised funds, donated by district employees and community members.
The reward amount could go up as more money is donated.
“The board believes a crime against one of our students in the city of Dayton is a crime against the Dayton community at large,” Guerriero said. “They won’t rest until this person is found. This child was innocent. We care for her. We want everyone to know this is very, very important to us.”
Crime Stoppers is offering an additional $1,000 to anyone who provides information that will help lead to the arrest. The suspect is believed to be in the range of 18 to 30 years old, a black male with light complexion, medium build and short hair.
“We need help from the public,” said Detective Elmer Querubin with Crime Stoppers. “No child should ever have to go through that situation. We’re doing our best to find the suspect.”
UPDATE @ 1:56 p.m. (May 13):
Cruiser camera video released Friday shows an adult male approach the an officer arriving at World of Wonder school following a stabbing on the playground.
The adult male directs the officer to the playground as several other people are seen leaving the area.
UPDATE @ 10:20 p.m.: The school board for Dayton Public Schools, at their meeting, said they will consider upgrading surveillance cameras and are looking into installing a fence at World of Wonder, a pre-K through 8 school on Oakridge Drive.
Board President Adil Baguirov also asked the board to consider offering a reward for the arrest and prosecution of the assailant. That suggestion was met by applause from the audience.
Board member John McManus: “I hope you find whoever did this and hunt him down like a dog.”
Baguirov said those safety measures listed at the meeting by DPS security — along with adding a safety whistle and an evacuation plan to outdoor protocols as well as enforcing that only school personnel may be on playgrounds during school hours — are “in advanced stages of study” and most, if not all will be implemented.
Assistant Chief of Police Mark Ecton reiterated that police have no known suspect.
“Someone saw something. Someone knows something,” he said. “We’re looking under every rock, we’re shaking the bushes trying to find that person.”
Matt Carper, chief of patrol operations, said the surveillance tape of the incident would be released “in the near future.”
UPDATE @ 2:40 p.m.: The father of the 7-year-old girl stabbed in the back on a Dayton Public Schools’ playground on Friday wants answers from the district.
Vernon Nored, who said his daughter is home recovering from a collapsed lung, hired attorney Michael Wright to investigate the World of Wonder’s role in the attack.
“The school, for me, has not been involved. They haven’t called,” Nored said, adding that he knows his daughter’s teacher and the principal personally. “I don’t know if it’s school funding that you can’t have a gate around the school? They say they have people walking through that area all the time.”
The school has told the girl’s parents that she doesn’t have to return for the last few days of school. Nored said his daughter will be attending a different school next year.
He said police told him the unknown attacker asked the girl and her friends what their names were, pushed the girl down and stabbed her in the back. Nored added he hadn’t seen the surveillance video, but that it was recorded from a long distance from where the incident happened.
“The family contacted me to investigate the circumstances of their daughter being stabbed at school,” Wright said. “No one expects to send a child to school and for them to get stabbed.”
Wright said that if the school security officer called in sick that day, why didn’t the children have recess in the school gym instead? Wright also said maybe there are policy changes needed to prevent this happening again. Nored speculated that he thought perhaps gang initiation was a possibility or that a “crazy” was just walking through the playground. He was in Cincinnati when a family member called him to tell him what happened.
He said the school wanted to verify who he was when he called them from a phone number that had recently changed and that the school also didn’t call the girl’s mother.
Nored said it was horrible to see his usually fun-loving, outgoing daughter in a hospital bed. Wright said the girl may need some counseling. “I want to go through the pain,” the dad said. “Let me go through it.”
The father said his daughter has always wanted to be a doctor and that “she wants to take care of kids now.”
UPDATE @ 2 p.m. (May 10):
The 7-year-old girl stabbed at school last week will most likely not return to school this year, her father told our reporters. The child’s father said the family will consider a new school for next year.
UPDATE @ 2:38 p.m. (May 9):
Sgt. Richard Blommel of Dayton police said during an afternoon press conference, a K-9 unit track of the suspect on Friday did not turn up any leads.
Blommel said there’s no suspect or motive yet. He said the initial indication is this was a total stranger, and the suspect was only on school property for a matter of seconds.
“This was an unprovoked attack,” Blommel said. “The person who would do this to a child is an animal and we need to get this animal off the street.”
The girl’s condition has “vastly improved” and she’s expected to be released from the hospital today. Blommel said the child was on a swing when she was stabbed.
A handful of young students as well as several adults have been interviewed in the case. The victim was stabbed once.
“We need the help of the citizens of Dayton to help catch this heinous criminal,” Blommel said.
UPDATE @ 11:54 a.m. (May 9):
Dayton school board member John McManus praised the work of the district’s crisis team Monday morning in the wake of Friday’s stabbing at World of Wonder school.
McManus, who was at the school greeting families, said extra counselors and nurses worked with regular school staff “to help care for the whole person,” whether students and families were fearful or confused.
McManus said the extra effort was needed, citing fear among young students.
“I spoke with several kids, probably 8 years old, this morning who were scared to go out on the playground,” McManus said. “There was one child who was clinging to his father’s leg who didn’t want to go to the classroom unless his father walked him to the classroom. The kids know what’s going on.”
RELATED: Board member after school stabbing: Make sure ‘this never happens again’
Dayton Public Schools made plans for extra security this week while children are outside, but McManus said the forecast of rain for much of the week may be a bit of a blessing.
“We really want to be cognizant of the feelings of some of these kids who may not want to go out on the playground,” he said. “The rain gives everybody some time to try to soothe some feelings and make everyone feel safe again.”
UPDATE @ 10:47 a.m. (May 9):
Dayton Children’s Hospital officials said they are unable to release any information about the child who was brought to the medical facility following a stabbing at World of Wonder school Friday.
This news organization is selecting not to release the victim’s identity at this time.
UPDATE @ 7:58 a.m. (May 9):
Dayton Public Schools Superintendent Lori Ward had a message prior to students arriving to school today after a 2nd grader was stabbed on the playground Friday “It is safe. It is safe at World of Wonder.”
Extra security is at the school, Dayton police have been driving around the neighborhood and a crisis team is at the school for students and staff, Ward said.
“This is a very senseless, cowardly act that happened on Friday and it’s really our priority that our students and our families and our staff are safe,” she said.
While students won’t be outside much today due to the rain, Ward said they are making assessments for the rest of the school year.
A condition update on the girl who was stabbed was not available.
FIRST REPORT
Click WHIO to download our free apps.
A second-grader at World of Wonder school was stabbed Friday by a male who entered the playground while she and other students were at recess.
Dayton police are continuing their search for the male, believed to be 18 to 20 years old, who stabbed a 7-year-old second-grade student during recess on the playground at World of Wonder PreK-8 school, 4411 Oakridge Drive.
As police continue their search, students and staff will return to school today. Dayton school officials will increase security at the school for the “foreseeable future,” especially when students are outside, a school spokesperson said this weekend.
The student, whose name has not been released, suffered serious injuries and remains at Dayton Children’s Hospital, according to Dayton police.
The preliminary investigation suggests that a male walked onto the playground about 1:30 p.m. Friday and stabbed the girl, then left the area headed toward Kammer Avenue.
“A man stabbed somebody,” a school secretary told 9-1-1 dispatchers. “They stabbed them on the playground.”
During the same call, another employee is heard telling the secretary how the victim was doing.
“She’s laying face down and the police are here,” the employee said.
The school was placed on lockdown. Students were dismissed just before 4 p.m.
Principal LaDawn Mims-Morrow, in a letter sent to families of World of Wonder students, said, “a trespasser entered our playground during recess today and assaulted one of our students. The incident is being actively investigated by Dayton police, who are pursuing a lead.
“The quick action of district security, administrators and our staff and students allowed us to clear the area and enter the building in an orderly manner following the incident. The building was then placed on lockdown as authorities conducted their search through the neighborhood.”
Mims-Morrow said counselors will be at the school on Monday if students need them. She also said there will be additional security at the school in the days ahead “whenever our students are outdoors.”
David Lawrence, Dayton Public Schools chief of school innovation, echoed Mims-Morrow’s comment that police “have a very clear and strong lead and are working on apprehending the suspect.”
He said, “We can’t predict some of these types of things. Most of our schools have security resource officers as part of their regular operations.”
Lawrence said he was at the school, located in a neighborhood that struggles with crime issues, within 2 or 3 minutes after the attack and brought extra security personnel with him.
Lawrence said he would like to tell parents “We will have lots of additional adults here [on Monday]. This is an anomaly, something that just doesn’t happen every day.”
District spokeswoman Jill Moberley said World of Wonder school usually has one DPS security guard in the building, but the individual wasn’t there Friday. Moberley said she wasn’t sure if that was because of illness or some other issue.
Two security guards responded from Thurgood Marshall High School, two blocks away.
“The two guards who responded from Thurgood were there in an instant,” Moberley said.
Late Friday afternoon, police released a description of the suspect:
* Black male, light complexion
* Medium build, 5-foot-8 to 5-foot-10
* 18 to 20 years old
* Short hair
* Blue or beige gym shorts
* Tan or green hooded sweatshirt
* Orange undershirt.
If you have any information about the suspect or this crime, you are asked to call Dayton Police at 333-COPS or Crime Stoppers at 222-STOP. ||||| (CNN) Ohio authorities are looking for a man who stabbed a 7-year-old girl at a school playground in Dayton.
The man walked onto the playground Friday, stabbed the second-grader and fled on foot, police said.
The unidentified victim is being treated for serious injuries at a local children's hospital.
The attack occurred at World of Wonder PreK-8, and prompted the school to be placed on lockdown.
"We don't know if at this point the child was targeted for some reason," said Dayton Police Lt. Eric Henderson.
Read More | A 7-year-old girl was hospitalized Friday afternoon after being stabbed by a man on her school's playground, CNN reports. The victim, a second grader at World of Wonder School in Dayton, Ohio, suffered serious injuries. "It's sickening," a woman present at the school during the attack tells WRGT. "It's heartbreaking, and I don't understand why someone would come and do that to a second grader." The attacker was not apprehended. Police say they aren't sure why the girl was stabbed or if she was specifically targeted. But school employees tell WHIO police "have a very clear and strong lead" on a suspect. World of Wonder was locked down following the stabbing, and the school plans on having additional security when children are playing outside in the future. |
Sexual harassment claims against yet another powerful man in media inspired New York Times White House correspondent Glenn Thrush to post an impassioned note on his Facebook page in October, calling on his fellow journalists to stand by women entering the field.
In the post, which linked to an article about the latest accusations against political journalist Mark Halperin, Thrush wrote, “Young people who come into a newsroom deserve to be taught our trade, given our support and enlisted in our calling — not betrayed by little men who believe they are bigger than the mission.”
It was a noble statement — but some Washington journalists I spoke to say it rings hollow, given Thrush’s own behavior with young women in the industry.
“He kept saying he’s an advocate for women and women journalists,” a 23-year-old woman told me, recounting an incident with Thrush from this past June. “That’s how he presented himself to me. He tried to make himself seem like an ally and a mentor.”
She paused. “Kind of ironic now.”
Thrush, 50, is one of the New York Times’s star White House reporters whose chronicles of the Trump administration recently earned him and his frequent writing partner Maggie Haberman a major book deal.
Thrush and the young woman met at her colleague’s going-away party at a bar near the Politico newsroom, she told me, and shared a few rounds of drinks in a booth. The night, she said, ended on a Washington street corner, where Thrush left her in tears after she resisted his advances.
The encounter was troubling enough to the woman that her friend Bianca Padró Ocasio, also 23 and a journalist, confronted Thrush about his behavior via text message the next day.
“I want to make sure you don’t lure young women aspiring journalists into those situations ever again,” she texted. “So help me out here. How can I do that?”
Thrush was apologetic but defensive.
“I don’t lure anybody ever,” he wrote, according to screenshots provided by Padró Ocasio. “I got drunk because I got some shitty health news. And I am acutely aware of the hurdles that young women face in this business and have spent the better part of 20 years advocating for women journalists.”
If Thrush is acutely aware of what young women face in the business of political journalism, he should also know it’s because he himself is one of the problems women face. Five years ago, when Thrush and I were colleagues at Politico, I was in the same bar as Padró Ocasio’s friend — perhaps the same booth — when he caught me off guard, put his hand on my thigh, and suddenly started kissing me. Thrush says that he recalls the incident differently.
Three young women I interviewed, including the young woman who met Thrush in June, described to me a range of similar experiences, from unwanted groping and kissing to wet kisses out of nowhere to hazy sexual encounters that played out under the influence of alcohol. Each woman described feeling differently about these experiences: scared, violated, ashamed, weirded out. I was — and am — angry.
Details of their stories suggest a pattern. All of the women were in their 20s at the time. They were relatively early in their careers compared to Thrush, who was the kind of seasoned journalist who would be good to know. At an event with alcohol, he made advances. Afterward, they (as I did) thought it best to stay on good terms with Thrush, whatever their feelings.
“I apologize to any woman who felt uncomfortable in my presence, and for any situation where I behaved inappropriately. Any behavior that makes a woman feel disrespected or uncomfortable is unacceptable,” Thrush said in a statement emailed to me on November 19.
In interviews with about 40 people in and around media who know Thrush, I got a picture of a reporter whose title doesn’t capture his power and stature. People who’ve worked with him say he can get a writer’s name in front of the right editor, if he wants. Newsroom leaders care what he thinks. Some reporters said Thrush had used his connections to help them land jobs or develop new sources.
When just sitting at a bar with a powerful man comes at a price
The downfall of Hollywood titan Weinstein has been a catalyst for a movement to stamp out workplace harassment, particularly the variety that pits powerful men against much less powerful women. They are facing consequences for their behavior like never before, including men in media. Halperin lost a coveted book deal. NPR news chief Michael Oreskes resigned. Leon Wieseltier lost funding for his new magazine. And Lockhart Steele, the editorial director of Vox Media, Vox’s parent company, was fired for misconduct.
Thrush wasn’t my boss at Politico. He was a reporter and I was an editor. We were on different teams and hardly crossed each other’s paths. But he was an incredibly influential person in the newsroom and in political journalism, a world I was still trying to break into in a meaningful way at the time.
It wasn’t that Thrush was offering young women a quid pro quo deal, such as sex in exchange for mentorship. Thrush, just by his stature, put women in a position of feeling they had to suck up and move on from an uncomfortable encounter.
On that night five years ago, I joined Thrush and a handful of other reporters for a few rounds at the Continental, a Politico hangout in Rosslyn, Virginia. At first, nothing seemed strange, until the crowd had dwindled down to Thrush, me, and one other female colleague.
Thrush tossed a $20 bill at her and told her to take a cab and leave us, “the grown-ups,” alone. He slid into my side of the booth, blocking me in. I was wearing a skirt, and he put his hand on my thigh. He started kissing me. I pulled myself together and got out of there, shoving him on my way out.
In the morning, Thrush sent me an apologetic email. I didn’t save it, but I recall it as similar to the one he would later send to Padró Ocasio’s friend in June. He said he was sorry, but he didn’t say for what, exactly.
A few hours later, I saw him in deep conversation with a number of men I worked with. My gut told me something was up. I worried he was covering his tracks by spreading a rosy version of the night. As many people told me in the course of reporting this story, Thrush is a talker — or, as many put it, “a bullshitter.” He likes to hear gossip, and he likes to spread it.
Gradually, things in the office started to change for me. Certain men in the newsroom, I thought, started to look at me differently. Some of their comments seemed a bit too familiar or were outright offensive. I had a nagging sense that I just wasn’t as respected as I used to be.
I started to think maybe I shouldn’t be in journalism if I couldn’t hang in a tough newsroom. I found myself on edge, nervous and anxious all the time. I started to believe I had brought this all on myself.
In the course of reporting this story, I was told by a male reporter who’d worked at Politico at the time that my instinct was right. He said that the day after that night at the bar, Thrush told him about the incident, except with the roles reversed. I had come onto him, the reporter said Thrush told him, and he had gently shut it down.
In a statement, Thrush denied that he disparaged me to colleagues at Politico. He said that “the encounter described [in this story] was consensual, brief, and ended by me.”
The source said that Thrush frequently told versions of this story with different young women as the subject. He would talk up a night out drinking with a young attractive woman, usually a journalist. Then he’d claim that she came onto him. In his version of these stories, Thrush was the responsible grown-up who made sure nothing happened.
There was no conventional HR office at Politico at the time (a VP of human resources position was created there in 2016). So I brought my concern about the night to an experienced colleague right after the incident. When I believed rumors were damaging my standing in the office a few months later, I told a very senior editor. I was under the impression that nothing could be done. A spokesperson for POLITICO Brad Dayspring emphasized that no formal complaint ever reached the general counsel’s desk and that both the colleague and senior editor in question had left POLITICO years ago.
Women have a very different story to tell
One former Politico staffer told me that she’d become worried about her reputation after an encounter with Thrush sometime in the winter of 2012-’13. The scene was, again, a Politico going-away party. She said she and Thrush spoke most of the night, until they ended up the last two of the party left in the bar. She says she’d had a lot to drink and Thrush offered her a ride home.
Her recollection of the details is fuzzy, but one way or another, he ended up in her place.
“I had alcohol blur,” she says. But Thrush was far from being the grown-up who prevented things from going too far; instead, she says, she was the one to raise objections. “I remember stopping him at one point and saying, ‘Wait, you’re married.’” After that, she says, he left almost immediately. “I remember that by the time he left, I didn’t have much clothes on.”
The woman says she was struggling at Politico at the time, and she wondered if gossip might have made her situation worse. “I don’t know if he told other male reporters or editors. Did that shade their opinion of me? There’s no way to know.”
She says she doesn’t believe she was pressured or that she’s a victim.
But she also says she wants others to know about what happened.
“The only regret I have is not telling more women. I told two. What if I had told five?”
One of the two women she told at the time shared with me her recollection of the conversation. “I remember she kept reemphasizing that they were both really drunk, that it was consensual,” the friend said. “And she did not believe it was an assault. But I do remember she was very rattled and upset and ashamed of what she saw as her role in it.”
Another woman described to me a 2013 Politico party that she attended in her early 20s. She said she was standing alone, Thrush came up to talk to her, and suddenly he leaned in and landed a wet kiss on her ear.
“It all happened very quickly. And he leaned in very quickly,” she said. “At the time, I remember thinking … adults sometimes kiss each other on the cheek. Then sometimes they miss and slobber on your ear. It was my way of thinking this wasn't as weird as I thought.”
Over time, the “whisper network” of warnings about Thrush has grown louder
A 21-year-old woman arrived in Washington last year to intern in a journalism organization. She heard from people who don’t even work with Thrush to be careful. An employee at the Washington Post told her about him when she first arrived. A few months later, she says, a reporter at Roll Call warned her about him, too. She passed on the intel to four other female interns.
Multiple young women journalists I spoke to said that they’d heard serious warnings about Thrush from friends. The word among women just starting in Washington, they said, is to be careful if you meet him at an event with alcohol, or if he sends you a direct message on Twitter. (Thrush suspended his Twitter account in September, saying it was too much of a distraction.)
There’s something endearing and inspiring about interns who self-organized to guard themselves and each other against advances offered under guise of praise and professional advice — but there’s also something sad about a world in which the savvy move is to teach a young woman not to trust an older man who has something nice to say about her work.
And whispers don’t fix everything. When Bianca Padró Ocasio’s friend found herself at the bar with Thrush in June, with him asking her to leave and go to another bar with him, she went to the bathroom and texted Padró Ocasio and another female friend, both of whom were also in journalism.
“I’m drunk,” she texted, as saved screenshots of the messages show. “I’m nervous about this Glenn situation.”
The friends urged her to call an Uber.
“I am,” she responded. “I need to go home.”
“Who else is there??” one friend asked. “Is there a woman you can uber home with?”
Instead, the woman ended up leaving the bar with Thrush, who suggested they walk off some of their drinking — get some fresh air.
He repeatedly tried to take her hand as they walked, she recalls, but she kept pulling it away. They crossed the Key Bridge from the Virginia neighborhood where Politico’s office is located into Georgetown. He led her down an incline to a dimly lit path along the old C&O Canal bed. He kissed her, she says, and she panicked. Then her phone rang, jolting her. It was Padró Ocasio.
“I felt very protective of her,” Padró Ocasio said, describing the call. “I thought, she’s drunk right now. If I don’t do something, I’m not going to forgive myself.”
The young woman ordered an Uber — the receipt shows it was about 11 pm — and says she planned to call Padró Ocasio back once inside the car. In the few minutes she waited, she said, Thrush walked back over to her and started to kiss her again. She began to cry. When Thrush saw, he abruptly walked off, waving his hand flippantly, and left her alone to wait for her ride, she said.
Padró Ocasio’s friend received an email from Thrush the next morning with the subject line, “Nice meeting you!” followed by, “(And apologies?).” She responded congenially. “It was nice meeting you too! (And no worries haha).” She also met him a few weeks later at a tea shop near the White House, a meeting they’d discussed the night at the bar. Thrush sent her a few critiques of her stories. She said she feels that despite her misgivings, she has to stay on good terms with him since he is connected.
“I hate feeling obligated to make him think I think everything is fine,” she said. “It’s been this thing hanging over me. I feel like I have to be nice to this person just because he knows people.”
In his emailed statement, Thrush said that the night in June with the young woman was the last time he’s had a drink. He wrote:
The June incident [described above] was a life-changing event [for me]. The woman involved was upset by my actions and for that I am deeply sorry. Over the past several years, I have responded to a succession of personal and health crises by drinking heavily. During that period, I have done things that I am ashamed of, actions that have brought great hurt to my family and friends. I have not taken a drink since June 15, 2017, have resumed counseling and will soon begin out-patient treatment for alcoholism. I am working hard to repair the damage I have done.
“I feel really strongly about not creating a toxic environment”
In the course of his text dialogue with Padró Ocasio about the incident with her friend, Thrush wrote, “I feel really strongly about not creating a toxic environment.”
Back at Politico years ago, Thrush’s behavior contributed to a toxic environment I experienced. Dozens of people told me that Politico has changed dramatically since Carrie Budoff Brown took over a year ago as the publication’s editor. Multiple men and women who work for her say her standards are high and she has no time for the kind of behavior I described.
Budoff Brown was at the going-away party in June where Thrush was in the booth with the 23-year-old woman. She told me she noticed them talking but, like other attendees I talked to, she didn’t know that anything happened afterward.
“I was disappointed in Glenn but had no reason to think that anything would progress beyond the bar that night,” she said. “And I am saddened to learn in the course of your reporting that it did.”
“Great journalism and great business require a great workplace. My colleagues and I have worked hard to nurture a newsroom where people are supportive, good to each other, and where mutual respect is the way of life. We have zero tolerance for anything else.”
By the time of the June incident, Thrush was gone from Politico anyway — off to the New York Times, which has hired many of Politico’s top reporters over the years. But now he will be on hiatus pending a Times investigation that was sparked by my reporting for this story.
"The behavior attributed to Glenn in this Vox story is very concerning and not in keeping with the standards and values of The New York Times,” said Eileen Murphy, the senior vice president of communications for the New York Times, in a written statement. “We intend to fully investigate and while we do, Glenn will be suspended. We support his decision to enter a substance abuse program. In the meantime, we will not be commenting further.”
It’s the Times itself, of course, that has done so much to spark the current conversation around harassment with its exposés on Harvey Weinstein and Louis C.K. There’s probably no loftier perch in all of political journalism from which one could teach the trade and enlist young women into the calling — or, as the case may be, betray them. ||||| The New York Times has suspended its star White House reporter Glenn Thrush in response to allegations of sexual misconduct published by Vox. The Times will assign him to a new beat when he returns, executive editor Dean Baquet announced on Wednesday.
Thrush will also receive “training designed to improve his workplace conduct,” according to the email sent to staff by Baquet. A spokesperson declined to elaborate on what the training will involve.
The decision is a response to a story I wrote this November about Thrush’s conduct over the past five years. I described how Thrush, 50, has positioned himself as a champion of women in journalism, but has also targeted young women, including me, at industry functions:
Three young women I interviewed, including the young woman who met Thrush in June, described to me a range of similar experiences, from unwanted groping and kissing to wet kisses out of nowhere to hazy sexual encounters that played out under the influence of alcohol. Each woman described feeling differently about these experiences: scared, violated, ashamed, weirded out. I was — and am — angry. Details of their stories suggest a pattern. All of the women were in their 20s at the time. They were relatively early in their careers compared to Thrush, who was the kind of seasoned journalist who would be good to know. At an event with alcohol, he made advances. Afterward, they (as I did) thought it best to stay on good terms with Thrush, whatever their feelings.
I also wrote about how Thrush liked to talk about young women with male colleagues in the Politico office, describing how he said he had to bat them away after they came onto him. He told this same story many times, a source said, including about me.
Thrush says he remembers the personal incident I described differently, and he denies he disparaged me in the newsroom. He also offered conciliatory words for other women. “I apologize to any woman who felt uncomfortable in my presence, and for any situation where I behaved inappropriately,” Thrush wrote. “Any behavior that makes a woman feel disrespected or uncomfortable is unacceptable.”
The article attempted to show how the actions of a powerful man affect women at work, well after the specific incident. I wrote how the rumor he started seeped into the newsroom and changed how men treated me.
Another woman told me how powerless she felt after an unwanted encounter with him: “I hate feeling obligated to make him think I think everything is fine,” she said. “It’s been this thing hanging over me. I feel like I have to be nice to this person just because he knows people.”
Thrush joins a laundry list of other powerful men in media who’ve recently been accused of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment. Thrush’s is the first prominent case where the accused did not lose his job. Baquet told Times staff that the company does not condone Thrush’s behavior but that they do not think it warrants firing him, either.
Thrush is currently on a two-month unpaid suspension. The Times suspended him in November pending an investigation. He’ll be able to return in January.
“Each case has to be evaluated based on individual circumstances,” Baquet wrote. “We believe this is an appropriate response to Glenn’s situation.”
Baquet is tapping into the broader question of what to do with men who “aren’t Weinstein,” as many have come to put it. These men aren’t accused of rape, like movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, but they’ve also done something terrible to a colleague (or colleagues) in the industry or a co-worker in the office.
We know what to do when the accusations are monstrous. But what do we do when accusations are bad, or even terrible, but fall below the bar set by the worst of the worst? Thrush is an early test.
Read Baquet’s full statement: ||||| The New York Times said on Wednesday that Glenn Thrush, one of the paper’s most prominent political reporters, would remain suspended until late January and then be removed from the team covering the White House after he faced allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior.
The decision came a month after the website Vox published a report that contained allegations from four female journalists of inappropriate behavior by Mr. Thrush. After learning Vox planned to run its article, which was published on Nov. 20, The Times began an investigation into Mr. Thrush’s conduct.
The inquiry was led by Charlotte Behrendt, a lawyer in the Times newsroom, and involved interviews with more than 30 people in New York and Washington, both inside and outside The Times, according to a person briefed on the process. Ms. Behrendt compiled a report with her findings that was reviewed by Dean Baquet, the executive editor, and a group of top editors.
Mr. Thrush was told of the decision on Wednesday during a meeting with Mr. Baquet.
In a statement, Mr. Baquet said the company had completed its inquiry and found that Mr. Thrush had “behaved in ways that we do not condone.” | Political reporter Glenn Thrush has "acted offensively" toward women—but not so offensively that the New York Times believes he should be fired, executive editor Dean Baquet says. The Times says Thrush, who has been on the paper's White House beat since January and was suspended without pay after accusations of sexual misconduct surfaced a month ago, will be suspended for another month, and will be removed from the White House team when he returns. Baquet says Thrush, 50, is independently undergoing counseling and substance abuse rehab, and will also be given "training to improve his workplace conduct." In a Vox story last month, four women described unwanted kissing and touching from Thrush. "We understand that our colleagues and the public at large are grappling with what constitutes sexually offensive behavior in the workplace and what consequences are appropriate," Baquet said. "Each case has to be evaluated based on individual circumstances. We believe this is an appropriate response to Glenn’s situation." At Vox, Laura McGann, one of the young journalists Thrush targeted, describes the case as an "early test" of what organizations do with men who are accused of sexual misconduct but who "aren't Harvey Weinstein." "We know what to do when the accusations are monstrous," she writes. "But what do we do when accusations are bad, or even terrible, but fall below the bar set by the worst of the worst?" |
Reston Police District – A man has been charged with murdering a 17-year-old Reston girl who was reported missing today, Sunday, June 18, around 4 a.m. near Dranesville Road and Woodson Road, in the Herndon area. An investigation determined she was walking outside with a group of friends when they got into a dispute with a man in a car. It appears the suspect, Darwin A. Martinez Torres, 22, of Sterling, got out of his car and assaulted the victim. Her friends could not find her and police were called to help.
Numerous patrol officers from the Fairfax County Police and Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office immediately began an extensive search. The police helicopter, K-9 teams and search and rescue teams also responded to search for the missing teen, whom officers believed to be injured. While searching, one officer saw a car driving suspiciously in the area and stopped it. The driver, later identified as Martinez Torres, was taken into custody as a suspect.
Around 3 p.m., the remains of a female were found in a pond in the 21500 block of Ridgetop Circle, in Sterling. The Office of The Chief Medical Examiner will conduct an autopsy to confirm the identity of the remains and determine the exact cause and manner of death; however, detectives do believe the remains are those of our missing teen. They later obtained a murder warrant charging Martinez Torres for her death.
Detectives and Victim Services Specialists are have been in close communication with the family throughout this investigation and will continue to provide assistance, as needed. The Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office provided invaluable resources and assistance and we will continue to work closely with them as the case develops. ||||| (Update: Killing of a Muslim teenager in Virginia is being investigated as a road-rage incident, police say)
The death of a Virginia teenager who police say was assaulted and then disappeared after leaving a mosque in the Sterling area isn't being investigated as a hate crime, authorities said Monday.
On Sunday, police found the girl’s remains and a 22-year-old man has been charged with murder in connection with the case.
The mosque, the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) in Sterling, and relatives identified the girl as 17-year-old Nabra Hassanen of Reston.
Fairfax County police identified the man charged with murder in her death as Darwin Martinez Torres of Sterling. On Monday, they did not release any explanation as to why they weren’t investigating the murder as a hate crime.
Relatives identified the slain teen as Nabra Hassanen, 17, right, of Reston, seen in a social media post with a filter. (All Dulles Area Muslim Society Center)
According to accounts from police and a mosque official, a group of four or five teens were walking back from breakfast at IHOP early Sunday when they were confronted by a motorist. All but one of the teens ran to the mosque, where the group reported that the girl had been left behind, according to Deputy Aleksandra Kowalski, a spokeswoman for the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office.
“Immediately thereafter, the ADAMS’ personnel notified both Loudoun County and Fairfax County authorities who immediately began an extensive search to locate the missing girl,” the mosque said in a statement.
Loudoun and Fairfax police jointly conducted an hours-long search around Dranesville Road and Woodson Drive in Herndon, which is in Fairfax. Remains thought to be the girl’s were found about 3 p.m. Sunday in a pond in the 21500 block of Ridgetop Circle in Sterling. During the search, an officer spotted a motorist driving suspiciously in the area and arrested Torres, police said.
Police said they collected several articles of evidence but declined to provide further details.
The girl’s mother said detectives told her that Nabra was struck with a metal bat.
“I can’t think of a worse instance to occur than the loss of a 17-year-old on Father’s Day, as the father of a 17-year-old myself,” Loudoun County Sheriff Michael L. Chapman said.
Detectives think the remains are those of the girl, but the chief medical examiner’s office will confirm the identity and manner of death, Fairfax police spokeswoman Tawny Wright said.
Darwin Martinez Torres, 22, of Sterling, has been charged in the teen’s death. (Fairfax County Police)
Shoyeb Hassan, the co-chair of ADAMS, said that during the last 10 days of Ramadan, the mosque has extra prayers at midnight and 2 a.m., and members frequently go to McDonald’s or the 24-hour IHOP to eat before they start their fast at sunrise, as Nabra and her friends were doing.
The killing rattled a Muslim community in the midst of celebrating Ramadan, a month of religious observance in which adherents fast from dawn to sunset for about a month. The period culminates in the feast-like celebration Eid al-Fitr, which is expected to fall next weekend.
“We are devastated and heartbroken as our community undergoes and processes this traumatic event,” Rizwan Jaka, chairman of ADAMS, said in a statement. “It is a time for us to come together to pray and care for our youth.”
ADAMS is Northern Virginia’s largest mosque and, with 11 chapters around the District and Northern Virginia, is among the nation’s most well-known congregations. According to ADAMS’s website, the Sterling location is 25,000 square feet and can accommodate more than 700 people. It includes a youth weekend school, a gymnasium and multipurpose hall, the site says.
Arsalan Iftikhar, an international human rights lawyer and commentator, said that he and his wife were at the mosque for evening prayers, which ended about 12:30 a.m. Sunday. As they were pulling out of the parking lot, he said, he saw a group of teenagers congregating and talking loudly about going out to eat. The girls, he said, were wearing the abaya, a full-length dress many Muslim women wear.
[Van strikes crowd near mosque in London; one person is arrested]
Police said Monday they aren’t investigating the death as a hate crime, but the issue was on the minds of many Muslims on Sunday.
Last month, two men on a Portland train were stabbed and killed after they intervened to protect two girls who were being harassed with anti-Muslim threats, according to authorities.
Sunday night, a van struck a crowd of pedestrians, including worshipers leaving a pair of mosques in London. Witnesses said the pedestrians were struck as they departed late-night prayers.
The ADAMS Center has a paid armed security guard at the Sterling site, according to Iftikhar. He said many mosques have increased security since six Muslim worshipers were killed at a mosque in Quebec earlier this year.
[‘Brave and selfless’ Oregon stabbing victims hailed as heroes for standing up to racist rants
Nabra’s slaying sent a chill through the community when news spread Sunday.
“People are petrified, especially people who have young Muslim daughters,” Iftikhar said.
Virginia officials condemned the killing Sunday night and expressed condolences to Nabra’s family.
Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) said she visited ADAMS Sunday and met with leadership and law enforcement officials.
“We are heartbroken and horrified by the news of the brutal murder of a beautiful 17-year old girl,” Comstock said in a statement.
The congresswoman represents Virginia’s 10th District, where the mosque is located. “We know there is no greater pain for any parent and Chip and I extend our prayers to her family and loved ones at this difficult time and the entire ADAMS Center community,” she said. “We commend the Fairfax County Police Department and the Loudoun County Sheriff’s office for their diligent work in apprehending the perpetrator. This case should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
Virginia Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam (D) said he and his wife, Pam, were “deeply disturbed” by the assault and killing.
“There is absolutely no place for this kind of violence in our Commonwealth,” Northam said in a statement. “Every Virginian should feel safe and welcome in our communities, and no parent should ever have to experience such a heartbreaking tragedy. As the police investigation continues, I urge all Virginians to keep Nabra’s friends and family in their hearts.”
Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) echoed Northam, urging Virginians to show compassion and kindness.
“The ADAMS Center has always welcomed me and so many in Northern Virginia like family,” Herring said. “This unspeakable attack feels like an assault on our entire community. Words fail at a time like this, so we’ll all have to do the best we can to surround them with the love and support they’ve always shown each of us.”
On a crowdfunding page to support Nabra’s family, donations surged Sunday night, jumping from $10,000 to nearly $18,000 in less than an hour. Shortly before 10 p.m., the fundraising page had met its $25,000 goal.
In a neighborhood full of Muslim immigrant families, the Hassanens’ modest Reston apartment was the one overflowing with friends and laughter most days, friends said Sunday.
“It’s a family where if you’re feeling down and you need to laugh, this is where you go,” said Samar Ali, 26, who grew up in the Hassanens’ apartment complex.
On Sunday night, that apartment normally filled with laughter was crammed with more than 30 women in traditional Muslim garb, sobbing and comforting one another. At the center of the crowded, dimly lit living room was Nabra’s mother, Sawsan Gazzar.
“Please pray for me, please pray for me,” Gazzar sobbed in Arabic. Her phone rang constantly. To her brother and sister in her native Egypt, she said, “Pray for me that I can handle this . . . I lost my daughter, my first reason for happiness.”
The night before, Gazzar had cooked a feast for Nabra, the oldest of her four daughters, who wanted to host a big iftar break-the-fast dinner for all her friends from ADAMS and South Lakes High School, where she just finished 10th grade.
The iftar was packed — Nabra was always popular and sociable. And when it ended, a friend’s mom drove some of the teens to ADAMS for the midnight prayers that mark the last 10 days of Ramadan. Family members said she frequented the mosque during Ramadan.
And during the holy month, the mosque was filled with teens like her.
Gazzar said she thought Nabra and her friends would eat at the mosque after the prayers, and she would have forbidden her from walking to IHOP in the middle of the night. But she also wasn’t surprised that the girl went out; she and other teens had done it safely last year.
Other mothers in the apartment Sunday night echoed the same thought repeatedly — they and their children had always felt safe taking the sidewalk path to IHOP or McDonald’s for a fun meal on those final Ramadan nights.
Gazzar loaned her daughter an abaya to wear to the mosque Saturday night, since Nabra didn’t typically wear traditional Muslim clothes. She heard from a detective that when the man in the car started shouting at the teens, Nabra tripped over the long garment and fell to the ground, just before she was struck.
“I think it had to do with the way she was dressed and the fact that she’s Muslim,” Gazzar said. “Why would you kill a kid? What did my daughter do to deserve this?”
Nabra was a diligent student, so much so that although she was extremely proud to get her first job ever at a McDonald’s, she quit when her manager didn’t understand that studying for a school exam took priority over a work shift. Family members were quick to note her interest in fashion and makeup, and her recently acquired nose ring.
All four Hassanen girls were born in the United States — the younger ones are 11, 10 and 3. Ali described Nabra as a “daddy’s girl” who was close with her father, a bus-and-limo driver. Her father spent Sunday at the mosque, Ali said, beside himself with worry all day.
Gazzar’s phone rang yet again, and this time she didn’t answer. She turned instead to the hundreds of photos stored on it, scrolling through them until she landed on one of Nabra visiting her parents’ homeland in Egypt, laughing as she embraced two of the teen’s little sisters.
“They’d all be laughing. They used to be really happy.”
She gazed into the girls’ eyes, and cried harder.
Correction: An earlier version of this report incorrectly stated the number of Muslim girls who were being harassed in Portland. One of the two girls identifies as Muslim.The story has also been updated to clarify earlier information. ||||| Police in Fairfax, Virginia, found the body of a 17-year-old Muslim girl who was reported missing early Sunday after leaving a mosque with a group of friends.
Shortly after finding her remains Sunday afternoon, officers arrested 22-year-old Darwin Martinez Torres and charged him with murder in connection to the case. Police said Monday evening that "the autopsy results show Nabra suffered from blunt force trauma to the upper body after a road rage incident."
Mosque officials said Hassanen and her friends were coming back from eating during a break from Ramadan prayers when a car pulled up and a man with a baseball bat jumped out and started swinging at the group of girls.
The teens were walking on Dranesville Road toward the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center in Sterling, Virginia, at around 3:30 a.m. on Sunday after grabbing breakfast at a nearby McDonald's before beginning their fast at sunrise for Ramadan, police and mosque officials said.
Torres was at the McDonald's at the same time Yufra Abdelmuid, a family friend of Hassanen's and who knows the other teens in the group, told BuzzFeed News on Monday.
The 21-year-old said Hassanen is close with her little sister and described the North Virginian Nubian community as "family." She has been helping Hassanen's father plan the funeral, which will be this week.
After the group finished, they started walking back and that's when a motorist confronted them and they got into an altercation, Deputy Aleksandra Kowalski, a spokesperson for the Loudoun County Sheriff’s office, told BuzzFeed News. Police believed that Torres got out of his car and assaulted Hassanen. "Her friends could not find her and police were called to help," Fairfax County police said.
Abdelmuid said she was with the distraught teens, whose ages range from 13-16, when they were giving their statements to police detailing how Hassanen got separated during the attack.
"They told me that he was at the McDonald's at the same time and he followed them in his car," said Abdelmuid. "He then got into an argument with them and they started running into the Bowl America parking lot nearby and he got out of his car with a bat and chased them and hit her over the head."
The girls were all wearing traditional Muslim clothing called abayas and "definitely stood out," she added.
The manager at that McDonald's located in Towncenter Plaza told BuzzFeed News she could not comment on whether Torres was there.
While it was evident that the teens were Muslim, police on Monday emphasized that there is nothing to indicate at this point that the murder was a hate crime.
"No evidence has been uncovered that shows this murder was motivated by race or religion," said Julie Parker, the public affairs director for Fairfax County Police.
"If during the course of this ongoing criminal investigation, information or evidence later surfaces that would indicate this was hate-motivated, detectives would certainly ensure appropriate charges are filed," police said in a statement.
Nabra’s mother, Sawsan Gazzar, told thw Washington Post, "I think it had to do with the way she was dressed and the fact that she’s Muslim."
"Why would you kill a kid? What did my daughter do to deserve this?" she asked.
According to accounts from police and mosque officials, all of the teens except for one fled the scene. Members from the community found the group and directed them to the ADAMS Center, which immediately notified officials at around 4 a.m., Rizwan Jaka, a board member at ADAMS, said in a statement.
"They all dispersed after the incident and when they met back up they realized she was missing," Kowalski said.
"We are devastated and heartbroken as our community undergoes and processes this traumatic event. It is a time for us to come together to pray and care for our youth," the center's statement said.
After starting their search at 4 a.m. on Sunday, officers found her remains in a pond in Sterling around 3 p.m. | The murder of a Muslim teenager who was kidnapped and killed after leaving a mosque in northern Virginia early Sunday is being investigated as a possible hate crime, police say. Police say 17-year-old Nabra Hassanen was part of a group of teens who were walking back to the All Dulles Area Muslim Society mosque in Sterling around 3:30am after eating at an IHOP when they were confronted by a motorist, the Washington Post reports. BuzzFeed reports that mosque officials say the man swung a baseball bat at the girls. After running back to the mosque to seek help, the group discovered Nabra was missing, police say. A body believed to be hers was found in a pond a few miles away around 12 hours later. Darwin Martinez Torres, 22, was arrested and charged with murder after police saw him "driving suspiciously" in the area, according to a Fairfax Police press release. Nabra and the other girls, who went out to eat during a break in Ramadan prayers, had been in Muslim dress, though police say they aren't sure if the attack was motivated by bias or a dispute. The mosque "has always welcomed me and so many in northern Virginia like family," Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring said Sunday night, condemning the "unspeakable attack." "Words fail at a time like this, so we'll all have to do the best we can to surround them with the love and support they've always shown each of us," he said, per NBC4. |
The ruling AK Party has come under a barrage of criticism in Turkey following the Soma coal mine explosion that has killed at least 205 people and left hundreds more trapped underground.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's party has been accused of dismissing a parliamentary motion submitted by the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) to investigate safety in the Soma mines as recently as 29 April.
The CHP local deputy for Manisa province, where Soma is located had denounced the frequent mine accidents and deaths that should have served as warning to avoid major disasters. But the parliament rejected the investigation with votes from the AK Party.
An AKP lawmaker from the same province even boasted that Turkish mines were safer than others, according to reports.
The hashtag #kazadegilcinayet which roughly translates as "murder not an accident" is trending on Twitter.
Protests are planned in front of the Istanbul headquarters of Soma Komur Isletmeleri, the operators of the mine. The head of the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions (DISK), which is one of the major unions in Turkey, said that a large number of subcontracted workers were operating in the mine.
"There are second and third-tier subcontractors working in this mine. I hope that the death toll will not further climb, but I am not optimistic. There is a massacre that happened following the explosion inside," Kani Beko said.
Among the dead was a 15-year-old boy employed illegally at the mine.
Turkish energy minister Taner Yildiz has called the Soma fire "the country's deadliest accident ever" as 300 more workers are feared to be trapped inside. Most of the victims died due to carbon monoxide poisoning, according to officials.
"We are worried that this death toll will rise...I have to say that our hopes are dimming in terms of the rescue efforts," Yildiz said.
The explosion took place after 3pm on Tuesday and triggered a deadly inferno still burning underground, hindering rescue efforts.
Yildiz added that 787 workers had been in the mine at the time of the blast. A cold storage warehouse, usually used for food, and freezer trucks were transformed into makeshift morgues.
The government has ordered Turkish flags to fly at half-mast and a 3-day national mourning. ||||| SOMA, Turkey Furious Turks heckled Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and jostled his entourage on Wednesday as protests erupted in several cities over a coal mine disaster in which at least 274 people died, making it the worst industrial accident in the nation's history.
With rescuers still pulling bodies from the site in western Turkey, anger swept a country that has seen a decade of rapid economic growth but still suffers from one of the world's worst workplace safety records.
Erdogan expressed his regret after visiting the site in Soma, about 480 km (300 miles) southwest of Istanbul, where around 100 miners are thought to be still trapped underground following Tuesday's fire. "We as a nation of 77 million are experiencing a very great pain," he told a news conference.
But he appeared to turn defensive when asked whether sufficient precautions had been in place. "Explosions like this in these mines happen all the time. It's not like these don't happen elsewhere in the world," he said, reeling off a list of global mining accidents since 1862.
Angry residents broke windows at the local government offices in Soma, some chanting "Erdogan resign", while parts of the crowd lining the street booed as the prime minister walked through the town, jostling with members of his entourage.
Protesters later kicked Erdogan's car as it left the area.
Opponents of Erdogan - who has already faced mass protests against his rule in the past year - have attacked his government for leasing mines to parts of the private sector cozy with the ruling party, and accuse it of ignoring repeated warnings about their safety.
In Istanbul, police fired tear gas and water cannon to disperse several thousand people, some wearing miners' hard hats and headlamps. Police also clashed with demonstrators in the capital Ankara and there were protests in other cities.
Many took to social media to express their outrage at the government's handling of the crisis. "Beyond ridiculous. Turkish PM cites 19th century Britain to prove mining accidents are 'typical'," one user wrote on Twitter.
MOURNERS WEEP
Fire knocked out power at the mine and shut down ventilation shafts and elevators on Tuesday afternoon. Emergency workers pumped oxygen into the mine to try to keep those trapped alive during a rescue effort that lasted through the night. Thousands of family members and co-workers gathered outside the town's hospital searching for information on their loved ones.
"We haven't heard anything from any of them, not among the injured, not among the list of dead," said one elderly woman, Sengul, whose two nephews worked in the mine along with the sons of two of her neighbors.
"It's what people do here, risking their lives for two cents ... They say one gallery in the mine has not been reached, but it's almost been a day," she said.
A mechanical digger opened a row of fresh graves at Soma's main cemetery. An imam presided over the funeral of six miners as a few hundred mourners wept in silence.
The fire broke out during a shift change, leading to uncertainty over the exact number of miners trapped. Energy Minister Taner Yildiz said the death toll as of 1930 GMT on Wednesday was 274, making it Turkey's deadliest accident. Late on Tuesday he said 787 workers had been in the mine.
Yildiz warned that "hopes were dimming" of finding many more survivors.
Turkey's safety record in coal mining has been poor for decades, with its previous worst accident in 1992, when a gas blast killed 263 workers in the Black Sea province of Zonguldak.
The mine operator Soma Komur Isletmeleri said nearly 450 miners had been rescued and that the deaths were caused by carbon monoxide. It said the cause was not yet clear.
Initial reports suggested an electrical fault caused the blaze but Mehmet Torun, a board member and former head of the Chamber of Mining Engineers who was at the scene, said a disused coal seam had heated up, expelling carbon monoxide through the mine's tunnels and galleries.
"They are ventilating the shafts but carbon monoxide kills in 3 or 5 minutes," he told Reuters by telephone.
"Unless we have a major miracle, we shouldn't expect anyone to emerge alive at this point," he said, pointing to an outside chance that workers may have found air pockets to survive.
EXHAUSTED RESCUERS
The disaster highlighted Turkey's poor record on worker safety and drew renewed opposition calls for an inquiry into a drop in safety standards at previously state-run mines. The International Labour Organization ranked the EU candidate nation third worst in the world for worker deaths in 2012.
Erdogan earlier declared three days of national mourning and canceled an official visit to Albania. President Abdullah Gul also canceled a trip to China scheduled for Thursday in order to travel to Soma.
A pall of smoke hung above the area of the mine and Yildiz said the fire was still burning underground, hampering the rescue operation, which was halted for several hours as the evening wore on to allow exhausted rescuers to recover.
Turkey's disaster management agency AFAD said in an email 85 people had been treated for their injuries.
Freezer trucks and a cold storage warehouse usually used for food served as makeshift morgues as hospital facilities overflowed. Medical staff intermittently emerged from the hospital to read the names of survivors being treated inside, with families and fellow workers clamoring for information.
"This isn't a huge city. Everyone has neighbors, relatives or friends injured, dead or still trapped. I am trying to prepare my family for the worst," said Hasan Dogan, 27, watching TV news reports from a canteen set up outside the hospital.
Some 16,000 people from a population of 105,000 in the district of Soma work in the mining industry, according to Erkan Akcay, a local opposition politician. The district is no stranger to tragedies, but never before on this scale.
The words "For those who give a life for a handful of coal" are engraved on the entrance wall to the emergency clinic.
Teams of psychiatrists were being pulled together to counsel the families of victims. Paramilitary police guarded the entrance to the mine to keep distressed relatives at a safe distance, as residents offered soup, water and bread.
"They haven't brought any ambulances in such a long time that we've started to lose hope," said Hatice Ersoy, 43, a woman in a headscarf sitting on a pavement outside the hospital.
POOR RECORD
Turkey's rapid growth over the past decade has seen a construction boom and a scramble to meet soaring energy demand, with worker safety standards often failing to keep pace. It is a net importer of coal.
The Labour Ministry said late on Tuesday its officials had carried out regular inspections at the Soma mine, most recently in March, and that no irregularities had been detected.
But Hursit Gunes, a deputy from the main opposition Republican People's Party, said a previous request for a parliamentary inquiry into safety and working conditions at mines around Soma had been rejected by the ruling AK Party.
"I'm going to renew that parliamentary investigation demand today. If (the government) has been warned about this and they did nothing, then people will be angry, naturally. The opposition warned them. But there's unbelievable lethargy on this issue," Gunes told Reuters.
The ILO in 2012 said Turkey had the highest rate of worker deaths in Europe and the world's third-highest. In the mining sector, 61 people died in 2012, according to the ILO's latest statistics. Between 2002 and 2012, the death toll at Turkish mines totaled more than 1,000.
(Additional reporting by Yesim Dikmen in Soma; Humeyra Pamuk, Ayla Jean Yackley, Daren Butler, Dasha Afanasieva, Asli Kandemir and Evrim Ergin in Istanbul; Gulsen Solaker and Jonny Hogg in Ankara; Writing by Nick Tattersall and Jonny Hogg; Editing by Peter Graff and David Stamp) ||||| Turkish police have fired teargas and water cannon at 800 protesters who were marching from a university in Ankara to the energy ministry to protest about the fatal coal mine explosion that has killed at least 200 miners and left hundreds trapped underground .
Protests against Soma Holdings, the company that owns the coal mine that exploded killing more than 200 people and trapping hundreds more kilometres below ground, have spread across Turkey with many demonstrators staging sit-ins and holding banners.
The development came as prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is visiting the scene, told reporters that the death toll of the disaster had risen to 232.
Riot police blocked off the street outside the Istanbul offices of Soma Holdings where a group of people sprayed "Murderers" on the walls and held placards reading: "This building rises on the blood of workers" and "They didn't die beautifully. This is murder not fate".
They were referring to the words of former labour minister Omer Dincer who said that 30 miners who lost their lives in an accident in Zonguldak in 2010 "died beautifully" and Erdogan who claimed their deaths was "fate".
In Istanbul, groups of youths staged "lay-in" demos in Istanbul metro and Taksim Square. They pretended to be dead to demonstrate against Soma Holdings' safety records.
Protesters also gathered in the Istanbul neighbourhood of Besiktas.
Turkish unions called for a nationwide strike to protest at the deaths deaths and press for more safety measures in workplaces.
The ruling AK Party has come under a barrage of criticism. Erdogan's party has been accused of dismissing a parliamentary motion submitted by the opposition Republican People's Party to investigate safety in the Soma mines as recently as 29 April.
Turkish energy minister Taner Yildiz called the Soma fire "the country's deadliest accident ever" as 300 more workers were feared trapped underground. Yildiz added that 787 workers had been in the mine at the time of the blast.
A cold storage warehouse, usually used for food, and freezer trucks were transformed into makeshift morgues.
The government has ordered flags to fly at half-mast and declared three days of national mourning. ||||| A mine explosion in western Turkey has killed 245 people, with 80 injured according to Energy Minister Taner Yildiz, and the toll could rise with many more still trapped.
Erdogan made an announcement declaring that 238 had been killed at a news conference during a visit to the western town of Soma – the location of the disaster – on Wednesday. He added that a further 120 workers remained trapped.
However, Yildiz later confirmed that the death toll had risen to 245, while adding that the fire had still not been fully extinguished.
Earlier in the day, Yildiz told reporters that 787 workers had been in the Soma mine when the explosion hit a power unit. Most of the confirmed dead were killed by carbon monoxide poisoning, Yildiz added.
Four of the injured were in a critical condition, according to Yildiz.
More than 360 workers have been evacuated thus far. However, Yidiz said that hopes for the rescue effort were "dimming". "We are worried that this death toll will rise," he told reporters.
"We fear that the numbers could rise further," he stated, adding that it was necessary to complete the rescue operation by dawn.
Rescue workers pumped oxygen into the mine in an attempt to keep trapped miners alive, Reuters reported. A line of police held back thousands of family and fellow workers of the trapped miners who assembled outside of a Soma hospital.
"Fresh air, oxygen is being pumped into the mine. This is the most important thing for our workers down there," Yildiz said.
The mayor of Soma, a district in Manisa, also said the explosion was caused by an electrical fault, Reuters reported. The explosion, which occurred about 1.2 miles below the surface, reportedly disabled an elevator in the mine shaft. The workers are trapped some 2.5 miles from the exit.
Soma is 120 km (75 miles) northeast of the Aegean coastal city of Izmir.
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan cancelled a Wednesday trip to Albania in order to visit the site of the blast, his office told Reuters.
"Rescue efforts for our brothers in the mine are ongoing ... God willing, in the coming hours, I hope to receive uplifting news," Erdogan said Tuesday.
Turkey’s worst mining disaster in recent years was a gas explosion in 1992 near the Black Sea port of Zonguldak, which left some 270 workers dead. Since then, Turkey has borne witness to several mining accidents. ||||| At least 205 buddy died in a mining accident in Turkey Soma killed, hundreds are trapped, underground still raging fire. Rescue workers search for survivors, the opposition denounces the lack of safety precautions.
At least 205 buddy died in a mining accident in Turkey Soma killed, hundreds are trapped, underground still raging fire. Rescue workers search for survivors, the opposition denounces the lack of safety precautions.
“Time is against us” – says the Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz after the serious accident in a mine in the western Turkish Soma. At least 201 buddy died when a substation exploded on Tuesday afternoon and caught fire. The fire continues to burn, the minister said. Hundreds of people are still trapped underground. Rescue workers continue to search for survivors.
Yildiz is rushed to the accident site in the province of Manisa. He said the rescue efforts had reached a “critical point” – with every minute that passes, the more likely that the trapped not survive.
80 miners were injured, four of them life-threatening. 360 workers could be brought to safety. Survivors were only sporadically brought over days, many of them had smoke inhalation and could barely breathe on Wednesday morning. Dozens of security forces were deployed in order to keep lanes for emergency vehicles.
At shift change on Tuesday afternoon estimated 780 men should have been in the pit, when some 400 meters underground, the explosion occurred. The power went out, the lifts and the air supply for the workers no longer worked.
At a depth of 2000 meters, hundreds were imprisoned – about four kilometers from the mine entrance. For the victims and the rescuers began the race against time, the many should lose that night.
The rescue team tried to breath to blow air into the shaft. For safety circuits on site was reported, two air bubbles, it would have formed. At the one hand, the recovery forces had access. In the other, the miners were but cut off from help.
Turkey Mine Disaster:Bang the end members on site
Before the entrance to the mine and before the district hospital of Soma , the relatives of the trapped people have gathered . They are trying desperately to get news about their fathers and sons. “Since the early afternoon, I now already waiting ,” says Sena Isbiler , the mother of a miner . ” So far I have not heard anything . ”
The authorities have four rescue teams sent into the pit , trying to put out the fire below ground and to supply the trapped miners with fresh air. The whole country rooting for and hoping for good news. On television, an expert on angry reactions of the audience makes when he describes the consequences of carbon monoxide poisoning underground as ” sweet death ” in which the person can feel no pain .
The people in town are shocked – some is already having anger at the authorities wide. The pit in Soma is one of the largest employers in the region in the province of Manisa . Around 6500 pal work here.
Turkey Mine Disaster:Tragic accident or massacre of greed?
Authorities and the Group Management speak of a tragic accident and emphasize the privately operated mine had been recently checked. The Turkish Ministry of Labour and Social Security said the pit had been investigated last March 17 for security problems and there had been no complaints.
However, given the frequent accidents in Turkish mines the doubts are great. “There is no security,” the workers Oktay Berrin says Soma. “The unions are just puppets, and the management thinks only about money.”
The opposition party CHP had failed in an attempt in Parliament from Ankara a few weeks ago to let investigate incidents in the pit of Soma: Erdogan’s ruling AKP party ironed the application. Critics accuse the government of having its compliance with safety precautions ignored in the privatization of many former state-owned mining companies in recent years.
For the left trade union confederation DISK misfortune of Soma is therefore a “massacre”, as the chairman Kani Beko says. In pits as in the Soma are all chains of subcontractors at work that would not be controlled properly. Safety would be ignored: “It’s all about winning.”
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan canceled a foreign trip and announced himself on the scene. Even opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu want to travel to Soma.
Mine accidents are not uncommon in Turkey. Inadequate safety measures and lack of controls in mining operations have contributed in recent years repeatedly to serious accidents. 1992 so far worst accident occurred in a mine in Zonguldak. Here, after a gas explosion 263 buddy had been killed. | With the death toll from Turkey's mine explosion at 238, some are attacking a mine management system that "thinks only about money," as one worker puts it. Anger has sparked protests, including one that saw 800 student demonstrators hit with tear gas and water cannons in Ankara, the International Business Times reports. In Istanbul, demonstrators sprayed words like "murderers" on the walls of the offices of mine owner Soma Holdings. The government, too, is under fire after the ruling party rejected an opposition motion to inspect the mines April 29, the IBT notes. Labor officials say the mine was inspected in March. A union confederation calls the disaster a "massacre." It notes that mines are operated through "chains of subcontractors," making oversight difficult, National Turk reports. Protests are also underway online, using the hashtag "#kazadegilcinayet," which means "murder, not an accident," the IBT notes. Some 120 workers are still trapped, says prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, per RT. Rescuers are pumping oxygen into the shafts to help them survive, Reuters reports. The government has called for three days of mourning. |
For other people named Stephen Fry, see Stephen Fry (disambiguation)
Stephen John Fry (born 24 August 1957) is an English comedian, actor, writer, presenter, and activist. With Hugh Laurie, he is half of the comic double act Fry and Laurie, who starred in A Bit of Fry & Laurie and Jeeves and Wooster.
Fry's acting roles include a Golden Globe Award–nominated lead performance in the film Wilde, Melchett in the BBC television series Blackadder, the title character in the television series Kingdom, a recurring guest role as Dr Gordon Wyatt on the crime series Bones, and as Gordon Deitrich in the dystopian thriller V for Vendetta. He has also written and presented several documentary series, including the Emmy Award–winning Stephen Fry: The Secret Life of the Manic Depressive, which saw him explore his bipolar disorder, and the travel series Stephen Fry in America. He was also the long-time host of the BBC television quiz show QI, with his tenure lasting from 2003 to 2016.
Besides working in television, Fry has contributed columns and articles for newspapers and magazines and written four novels and three volumes of autobiography, Moab Is My Washpot, The Fry Chronicles, and More Fool Me. He also appears frequently on BBC Radio 4, starring in the comedy series Absolute Power, being a frequent guest on panel games such as Just a Minute, and acting as chairman during one series of I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, where he was one of a trio of possible hosts who were tried out to succeed the late Humphrey Lyttelton, Jack Dee getting the post permanently.
Fry is also known for his voice-overs, reading all seven of the Harry Potter novels for the UK audiobook recordings, narrating the LittleBigPlanet and Birds of Steel series of video games, as well as an animated series of explanations of the laws of cricket,[2] and a series of animations about Humanism for Humanists UK.[3] He has also filmed commercials, including an advertisement where he explains the essence of British culture to foreigners arriving at London's Heathrow Airport.[4]
Early life and education [ edit ]
Fry was born in Hampstead, London on 24 August 1957[5] to Marianne Eve Fry (née Newman) and Alan John Fry, a British physicist and inventor.[6][7][8] Fry's father is English, and his paternal grandmother had roots in Kent and Cheshire.[9][10] The Fry family originates in Dorset, at Shillingstone and Blandford; in the early 1800s, Samuel Fry (second son of James Fry, of Shillingstone and Blandford) settled in Surrey, with his descendants residing in Middlesex.[11]
Fry's mother is Jewish, but he was not brought up in a religious family.[12] His maternal grandparents, Martin and Rosa Neumann,[8] were Hungarian Jews, who emigrated from Šurany (now Slovakia) to Britain in 1927. Rosa Neumann's parents, who originally lived in Vienna, were sent to a concentration camp in Riga, Latvia, where they were murdered by the Nazis.[8][12][13] His mother's aunt and cousins were sent to Auschwitz and Stutthof and never seen again.[8]
Fry grew up in the village of Booton near Reepham, Norfolk, having moved from Chesham, Buckinghamshire, at an early age. He has an elder brother, Roger, and a younger sister, Joanna.[14] Fry briefly attended Cawston Primary School in Cawston, Norfolk,[15] before going on to Stouts Hill Preparatory School in Uley, Gloucestershire, at the age of seven, and then to Uppingham School, Rutland, where he joined Fircroft house, and was described as a "near-asthmatic genius".[16] He was expelled from Uppingham when he was 15 and subsequently from the Paston School.
At 17, after leaving Norfolk College of Arts and Technology, Fry absconded with a credit card stolen from a family friend.[17] He had taken a coat when leaving a pub, planning to spend the night sleeping rough, but had then discovered the card in a pocket.[18] He was arrested in Swindon, and, as a result, spent three months in Pucklechurch Prison on remand. While Fry was in Pucklechurch, his mother had cut out the crossword from every copy of The Times since he had been away, something which Fry said was "a wonderful act of kindness". Fry later stated that these crosswords were the only thing that got him through the ordeal.[17]
Following his release, he resumed his education at City College Norwich, promising administrators that he would study rigorously to sit the Cambridge entrance exams. He scored well enough to gain a scholarship to Queens' College, Cambridge. At Cambridge, Fry joined the Footlights, appeared on University Challenge,[19] and read for a degree in English literature, graduating with upper second-class honours.[20][21] Fry also met his future comedy collaborator Hugh Laurie at Cambridge and starred alongside him in the Footlights.
Career [ edit ]
Comedy [ edit ]
Fry's career in television began with the 1982 broadcasting of The Cellar Tapes, the 1981 Cambridge Footlights Revue which was written by Fry, Hugh Laurie, Emma Thompson and Tony Slattery. The revue caught the attention of Granada Television, who, keen to replicate the success of the BBC's Not the Nine O'Clock News, hired Fry, Laurie and Thompson to star alongside Ben Elton in There's Nothing to Worry About!. A second series, retitled Alfresco, was broadcast in 1983, and a third in 1984; it established Fry and Laurie's reputation as a comedy double act. In 1983, the BBC offered Fry, Laurie and Thompson their own show, which became The Crystal Cube, a mixture of science fiction and mockumentary that was cancelled after the first episode. Undeterred, Fry and Laurie appeared in an episode of The Young Ones in 1984, and Fry also appeared in Ben Elton's 1985 Happy Families series. In 1986 and 1987 Fry and Laurie performed sketches on the LWT/Channel 4 show Saturday Live.
Forgiving Fry and Laurie for The Crystal Cube, the BBC commissioned, in 1986, a sketch show that was to become A Bit of Fry & Laurie. The programme ran for 26 episodes spanning four series between 1986 and 1995, and was very successful. During this time, Fry starred in Blackadder II as Lord Melchett, made a guest appearance in Blackadder the Third as the Duke of Wellington, then returned to a starring role in Blackadder Goes Forth, as General Melchett. In a 1988 television special, Blackadder's Christmas Carol, he played the roles of Lord Melchett and Lord Frondo. Between 1990 and 1993, Fry starred as Jeeves (alongside Hugh Laurie's Bertie Wooster) in Jeeves and Wooster, 23 hour-long adaptations of P. G. Wodehouse's novels and short stories.
Towards the end of 2003, Fry starred alongside John Bird in the television adaptation of Absolute Power, previously a radio series on BBC Radio 4. In 2010, Fry took part in a Christmas series of short films called Little Crackers. His short was based on a story from his childhood at school.[22] He appeared as the Christian God in 2011's Holy Flying Circus. In January 2016 it was announced that Fry would be appearing as the character "Cuddly Dick" in Series 3 of the Sky One family comedy Yonderland.[23] In 2016, Fry had a lead role in the American sitcom The Great Indoors. He portrayed an outdoor magazine publisher helping to ease his best worldly reporter (Joel McHale) into a desk job.[24] The show was cancelled after one season.[25]
Drama [ edit ]
Fry has appeared in a number of BBC adaptations of plays and books, including a 1992 adaptation of the Simon Gray play The Common Pursuit (he had previously appeared in the West End stage production); a 1998 Malcolm Bradbury adaptation of the Mark Tavener novel In the Red, taking the part of the Controller of BBC Radio 2; and in 2000 in the role of Professor Bellgrove in the BBC serial Gormenghast, which was adapted from the first two novels of Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast series. In 2011, Fry portrayed Professor Mildeye in the BBC adaptation of Mary Norton's 1952 novel The Borrowers.[26]
Fry narrates the first two seasons of the English-language version of the Spanish children's animated series Pocoyo.[27] From 2007 to 2009, Fry played the lead role in (and was executive producer for) the legal drama Kingdom, which ran for three series on ITV1.[28] He has also taken up a recurring guest role as FBI psychiatrist Dr. (later chef) Gordon Wyatt in the popular American drama Bones. In 2010, having learned some Irish for the role,[29] he filmed a cameo role in Ros na Rún, an Irish-language soap opera broadcast in Ireland, Scotland and the US.[30][31][32] In 2014 he began starring alongside Kiefer Sutherland and William Devane in 24: Live Another Day as British Prime Minister Alastair Davies.[33]
Documentaries and other factual programmes [ edit ]
Fry's first documentary was the Emmy Award-winning Stephen Fry: The Secret Life of the Manic Depressive in 2006.[34] The same year, he appeared on the BBC's genealogy series Who Do You Think You Are?, tracing his maternal family tree to investigate his Jewish ancestry.[35] Fry narrated The Story of Light Entertainment, which was shown from July–September 2006.[36] In 2007, he presented a documentary on the subject of HIV and AIDS, HIV and Me.[37]
On 7 May 2008, Fry gave a speech as part of a series of BBC lectures on the future of public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom,[38] which he later recorded for a podcast.[39] His six-part travel series Stephen Fry in America began on BBC One in October 2008, and saw him travel to each of the 50 US states.[40] In the same year, he narrated the nature documentaries Spectacled Bears: Shadow of the Forest for the BBC Natural World series. In the 2009 television series Last Chance to See, Fry and zoologist Mark Carwardine sought out endangered species, some of which had been featured in Douglas Adams' and Carwardine's 1990 book and radio series of the same name.[41]
In August 2011, Stephen Fry's 100 Greatest Gadgets was shown on Channel 4 as one of the 100 Greatest strand.[42] His choice for the greatest gadget was the cigarette lighter, which he described as "fire with a flick of the fingers".[42] In the same month, the nature documentary series Ocean Giants, narrated by Fry, premiered. In September 2011, Fry's Planet Word, a five-part documentary about language, aired on BBC HD and BBC Two.[43][44] In November 2011, an episode of Living The Life featured Fry in an intimate conversation discussing his life and career with Rolling Stones bass player Bill Wyman.[45]
At the 2012 Pride of Britain Awards shown on ITV on 30 October, Fry, along with Michael Caine, Elton John, Richard Branson and Simon Cowell, recited Rudyard Kipling's poem "If—" in tribute to the 2012 British Olympic and Paralympic athletes.[46] In November 2012, Fry hosted a gadgets show called Gadget Man, exploring the usefulness of various gadgets in different daily situations to improve the livelihoods of everyone.[47] In October 2013, Fry presented Stephen Fry: Out There, a two-part documentary in which he explores attitudes to homosexuality and the lives of gay people in different parts of the globe.[48]
On Christmas Day 2013, Fry featured with adventurer Bear Grylls in an episode of Channel 4's Bear's Wild Weekends. Over the course of two days, in the Italian Dolomites, Fry travelled on the skids of a helicopter, climbed down a raging 500-foot waterfall, slept in a First World War trench and abseiled down a towering cliff face.[18] In June 2015 Fry was the guest on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs. His favourite piece was the String Quartet No. 14 by Beethoven. His book choice was Four Quartets by T. S. Eliot and his luxury item was "canvasses, easels, brushes, an instruction manual".[49]
QI [ edit ]
In 2003, Fry began hosting QI (Quite Interesting), a comedy panel game television quiz show. QI was created and co-produced by John Lloyd, and features permanent panellist Alan Davies. QI has the highest viewing figures for any show on BBC Four and Dave (formerly UKTV G2).[50][51] In 2006, Fry won the Rose d'Or award for "Best Game Show Host" for his work on the series. In October 2015, it was announced that Fry would retire as the host of QI after the "M" series.[52]
Film [ edit ]
Having made his film début in the 1985 film The Good Father, Fry had a brief appearance in A Fish Called Wanda (in which he is knocked out by Kevin Kline, who is posing as an airport security man), and then appeared as the eponymous Peter in Kenneth Branagh's Peter's Friends in 1992. In the 1994 romantic comedy film I.Q., he played the role of James Moreland. Portraying Oscar Wilde (of whom he had been an ardent admirer since the age of 13) in the 1997 film Wilde, he fulfilled to critical acclaim a role that he has said he was "born to play". It also earned him a nomination for Best Actor – Drama in the 1998 Golden Globe Award. A year later, Fry starred in David Yates' small independent film The Tichborne Claimant, and in 2001 he played the detective in Robert Altman's period costume drama, Gosford Park. In the same year, he also appeared in the Dutch film The Discovery of Heaven, directed by Jeroen Krabbé and based on the novel by Harry Mulisch.
In 2003, Fry made his directorial début with Bright Young Things, adapted by him from Evelyn Waugh's Vile Bodies. In 2001, he began hosting the BAFTA Film Awards, a role from which he stepped down in 2006.[53] Later that same year, he wrote the English libretto and dialogue for Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation of The Magic Flute.[54]
Fry continues to make regular film appearances, notably in treatments of literary cult classics. He portrayed Maurice Woodruff in The Life and Death of Peter Sellers, served as narrator in the 2005 film version of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and in 2005 appeared in both A Cock and Bull Story, based on Tristram Shandy, and V for Vendetta, as a closeted TV presenter who challenges the fascist state. The Wachowskis pointed out that it was Fry's "normalcy" in the face of the insanity of the censorship of BTV that makes his character truly powerful and adds a "wholly unexpected dimension to the film".[55] In 2006, he played the role of gadget-master Smithers in Stormbreaker, and in 2007 he appeared as himself hosting a quiz in St Trinian's. In 2007 Fry wrote, for director Peter Jackson, a script for a remake of The Dam Busters.[56] He also appeared that year in Eichmann.
Fry was offered a role in Valkyrie, but was unable to participate.[57] Fry starred in the Tim Burton version of Alice in Wonderland, as the voice of the Cheshire Cat.[58] He played Mycroft Holmes in the 2011 film Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, directed by Guy Ritchie.[59] In 2010, Fry provided the voice of Socrates the Lion in the environmental animated film Animals United. He portrayed the Master of Lake-town in two of Peter Jackson's three film adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit: the second The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,[60] and the third The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.
Radio [ edit ]
Fry came to the attention of radio listeners with the 1986 creation of his alter-ego, Donald Trefusis, whose "wireless essays" were broadcast on the BBC Radio 4 programme Loose Ends. In the 1980s, he starred as David Lander in four series of the BBC Radio 4 show Delve Special, written by Tony Sarchet, which then became the six-part Channel 4 series This is David Lander in 1988. In 1988, Fry wrote and presented a six-part comedy series entitled Saturday Night Fry. Frequent radio appearances have ensued, notably on panel games Just a Minute and I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. In 2000, he began starring as Charles Prentiss in the Radio 4 comedy Absolute Power, reprising the role for three further series on radio, and two on television. In 2002, Fry was one of the narrators of A.A. Milne's Winnie-the-Pooh and The House at Pooh Corner, in which he voiced Winnie-the-Pooh. He presented a 20-part, two-hour series, The Incomplete and Utter History of Classical Music, a "witty guide" to the genre over the past 1,000 years, on Classic FM.
In 2007, he hosted Current Puns, an exploration of wordplay, and Radio 4: This Is Your Life, to celebrate the radio station's 40th anniversary. He also interviewed the Prime Minister Tony Blair as part of a series of podcasts released by 10 Downing Street.[61] In February 2008, Fry began presenting podcasts entitled Stephen Fry's Podgrams, in which he recounts his life and recent experiences.[62] In July 2008, he appeared as himself in I Love Stephen Fry, an Afternoon Play for Radio 4 written by former Fry and Laurie script editor Jon Canter.[63]
Since August 2008, he has presented Fry's English Delight, a series on BBC Radio 4 about the English language.[64] As of 2015, it has been running for eight series and 30 episodes. In the summer 2009 series of I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, Fry was one of a trio of hosts replacing Humphrey Lyttelton (the others being Jack Dee and Rob Brydon).[65] In 2012, he appeared as a guest panellist in the BBC Radio 4 comedy panel show Wordaholics.[66] In September 2012, he guest-starred as himself in the audio comedy drama We Are The BBC, produced by the Wireless Theatre Company, written by Susan Casanove.[67]
Theatre [ edit ]
Fry wrote the play Latin! or Tobacco and Boys for the 1980 Edinburgh Festival, where it won the Fringe first prize.[68] It had a revival in 2009 at London's Cock Tavern Theatre, directed by Adam Spreadbury-Maher.[69] The Cellar Tapes, the Footlights Revue of 1981, won the Perrier Comedy Award. In 1984, Fry adapted the hugely successful 1930s musical Me and My Girl for the West End, where it ran for eight years.
Fry was cast in Simon Gray's The Common Pursuit for its first staging in London's West End on 7 April 1988, with Rik Mayall, John Sessions, Sarah Berger, Paul Mooney and John Gordon Sinclair, directed by Simon Gray.[70] He was also cast in a lead role in Simon Gray's 1995 play Cell Mates, which he left three days into the West End run, pleading stage fright. He later recalled the incident as a hypomanic episode in his documentary about bipolar disorder, The Secret Life of the Manic Depressive. In 2007, Fry wrote a Christmas pantomime, Cinderella, which ran at London's Old Vic Theatre.[71]
Fry is a long-standing fan of the anarchic British musical comedy group the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, and particularly of its eccentric front man, the late Vivian Stanshall. Fry helped to fund a 1988 London re-staging of Stanshall's Stinkfoot, a Comic Opera, written by Vivian and Ki Longfellow-Stanshall for the Bristol-based Old Profanity Showboat. Fry performed several of Stanshall's numbers as part of the Bonzos' 2006 reunion concert at the London Astoria. He also appears as a shiny New Millennium Bonzo on their post-reunion album, Pour l'Amour des Chiens, on which he recites a recipe for "Salmon Proust", plays a butler in "Hawkeye the Gnu", and voices ads for the fictitious "Fiasco" stores. Following three one-man shows in Australia, Fry announced a 'sort of stand-up' performance at The Royal Albert Hall in London for September 2010.[72]
In September 2012, Fry made a return to the stage at Shakespeare's Globe, appearing as Malvolio in a production of William Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, which transferred to the West End in November 2012.[73][74] He received excellent reviews.[73][74] The production transferred to Broadway, with previews beginning 15 October 2013 and Opening Night 10 November 2013. Fry was nominated for a Tony in the category Best Performance by an Actor in a Featured Role in a Play for the Broadway revival.[75][76] In August 2013, he lent his voice to the title role in Britten's operetta Paul Bunyan at the Wales Millennium Centre with the Welsh National Youth Opera.[77]
In December 2013, Fry was invited by The Noel Coward Society to lay flowers on the statue of Sir Noël Coward at The Gershwin Theatre in Manhattan to celebrate the 114th birthday of "The Master".
From May to July 2018, Fry appeared in Mythos: A Trilogy, a stage version of his book Mythos, in the Shaw Festival Theatre in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. This comprised a set of three one-man shows (titled Gods, Heroes and Men), each two hours in length, which were performed consecutively, multiple times during the show's run.[78]
Audiobooks [ edit ]
Fry has been the reader for the British versions of all of J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series of audiobooks. He discussed this project in an interview with Rowling in 2005.[79] He has also read for Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy film tie-in edition and has made recordings of his own books, such as The Stars' Tennis Balls and Moab Is My Washpot, and of works by Roald Dahl, Michael Bond, A. A. Milne, Anthony Buckeridge, Eleanor Updale, and Alexander Pushkin. In June 2015, Fry backed children's fairy tale app GivingTales in aid of UNICEF together with other British celebrities Sir Roger Moore, Ewan McGregor, Dame Joan Collins, Joanna Lumley, Michael Caine, David Walliams, Charlotte Rampling, Paul McKenna and Michael Ball.[80]
In 2015, Fry made a live audio recording of the winning short story of the annual RA & Pin Drop Short Story Award, Ms. Featherstone and the Beast by Bethan Roberts, at a ceremony held at Royal Academy of Arts in London.[81]
In February 2017, Audible released Sherlock Holmes: The Definitive Collection, a complete collection of Sherlock Holmes stories, all read by Fry, who also narrated an introduction for each novel or collection of stories.
Fry is the patron of the audiobook charity Listening Books.[82] Fry said of his patronage, "I’m proud and delighted to be patron of the first audiobook charity to offer downloads to its members and excited about what this will mean for all print impaired people who can now listen on-the-go."[82]
Fry in 2017 also released his own audio book on Audible "Mythos",[83] in which he both wrote and narrated. In November 2018, Fry released a follow-up to Mythos, titled "Heroes".[84]
Video games [ edit ]
Fry's distinctive voice has been featured in a number of video games, including an appearance as Reaver, an amoral supporting character in Lionhead Studios games Fable II and Fable III, and as the narrator of the LittleBigPlanet series.[85][86] He also narrated the first four Harry Potter games: Philosopher's Stone, Chamber of Secrets, Prisoner of Azkaban, and Goblet of Fire.
Advertising [ edit ]
Fry has appeared in numerous advertisements – either on-screen or in voice-over – starting with an appearance as "Count Ivan Skavinsky Skavar" in a 1982 advert for Whitbread Best Bitter. Fry has said, in his memoirs, that after receiving his payment for this work – £25,000 – he has never subsequently experienced "what one could call serious money troubles". He has since appeared in adverts for products and companies such as Marks and Spencer, Twinings, Kenco, Vauxhall, Honda, Direct Line, Calpol, Heineken, Alliance & Leicester (a series of adverts which also featured Hugh Laurie), After Eights, Trebor, Panama cigars, Virgin Media and Orange Mobile.
Literature [ edit ]
Since the publication of his first novel, The Liar (1991), Fry has written three further novels, several non-fiction works and three volumes of autobiography. Making History (1996) is partly set in an alternative universe in which Adolf Hitler's father is made infertile and his replacement proves a rather more effective Führer. The book won the Sidewise Award for Alternate History. The Hippopotamus (1994) is about Edward (Ted/Tedward) Wallace and his stay at his old friend Lord Logan's country manor in Norfolk. The Hippopotamus was later adapted into a 2017 film.[88] The Stars' Tennis Balls (2000) is a modern retelling of The Count of Monte Cristo. Fry's book The Ode Less Travelled: Unlocking the Poet Within is a guide to writing poetry.
When writing a book review for Tatler, Fry wrote under a pen name, Williver Hendry, editor of A Most Peculiar Friendship: The Correspondence of Lord Alfred Douglas and Jack Dempsey, a field close to his heart as an Oscar Wilde enthusiast. Once a columnist in The Listener and The Daily Telegraph, he now writes a weekly technology column in the Saturday edition of The Guardian. His blog attracted more than 300,000 visitors in its first two weeks.[40]
In May 2009, Fry unveiled The Dongle of Donald Trefusis, an audiobook series following Donald Trefusis (a fictional character from Fry's novel The Liar and from the BBC Radio 4 series Loose Ends), set over 12 episodes.[89] After its release, it reached No. 1 on the UK Album Chart list. Ultimately however only three episodes were released, the rest with the note 'exact release date pending'. Fry's use of the word "luvvie" (spelled "lovie" by Fry), in The Guardian on 2 April 1988, is given by the Oxford English Dictionary as the earliest recorded use of the word as a humorous synonym for "actor".[90]
Fry was, at one time, slated to adapt A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole for the big screen.[citation needed] On December 1, 2015, Baidarka Boy, an imprint of Brooklyn Bridge University Press, released A Cornucopia of Dunderheads, a parody of Toole's Dunces.[91] The purported author of this parody is John Kennedy Toole Jr., who claims to be Toole's illegitimate son.
In August 2010, Fry joined the board of directors at Norwich City Football Club. A lifelong fan of "the Canaries" and a regular visitor to Carrow Road, he said, on being appointed, "Truly this is one of the most exciting days of my life, and I am as proud and pleased as I could be."[92] Fry stepped down from his Board position in January 2016, to take up a new position as "Norwich City Ambassador".[93] Fry said, "My five years in the role have been an honour and a privilege beyond almost anything I can remember. I wish I could take credit for ushering the club up from League One to the Premiership during that time on the Board. Actually, I’m going to. It was all me. It can’t have been a coincidence ... But now I’m so happy to relinquish my seat on the board to Thomas Smith and to engage as fully as I can in the role of ambassador for Norwich City. We have so much to be proud of, both on and off the pitch, and I hope to welcome many new fans to the greatest club of all. On the Ball, City!"[93] In February 2014, Fry became the honorary president of Proud Canaries, a new club for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender fans.[94]
Twitter [ edit ]
In October 2008, Fry began posting to the social networking site Twitter,[95] which he regularly updated.[96] On 16 May 2009, he celebrated the 500,000-follower mark: "Bless my soul 500k followers. And I love you all. Well, all except that silly one. And that's not you."[97]
Fry wields a considerable amount of influence through his use of Twitter.[98][99] He is frequently asked to promote various charities and causes, often inadvertently causing their websites to crash because of the volume of traffic generated by his large number of followers; as Fry notes on his website: "Four thousand hits a second all diving down the pipeline at the same time for minutes on end."[100] He uses his influence to recommend underexposed musicians and authors (who often see large increases in web hits and sales)[101][102] and to raise awareness of contemporary issues in the world of media and politics, notably the dropping of an injunction against The Guardian[103][104] and the attacking of Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir over her article on the death of Boyzone member Stephen Gately.[105][106]
In November 2009, Fry's Twitter account reached one million followers. He commemorated the million-followers milestone with a humorous video blog in which a 'Step Hen Fry' clone speaks from the year 2034, where MySpace, Facebook and Twitter have combined to form 'Twit on MyFace'.[107] In November 2010, he welcomed his two-millionth follower with a blog entry detailing his opinions and experiences of Twitter.[108] On 11 March 2012, Fry noted his passing of the four-million-followers mark with a tweet: "Lordy I've breasted the 4 million followers tape. Love you all. Yes even YOU. But let's dedicate today to Douglas Adams's diamond jubilee".[109] As of February 2017 he had 12.4 million followers.[110]
Fry has a history of temporarily distancing himself from the social networking site which began when he received criticism in October 2009. However, he retracted the announcement that he would be leaving the following day.[111] In October 2010, Fry left Twitter for a few days, with a farewell message of "Bye bye", following press criticism of a quote taken from an interview he had given. After returning, he explained that he had left Twitter to "avoid being sympathised with or told about an article" he "would otherwise never have got wind of".[112] In some quarters, the general methods Fry uses on Twitter have been criticised.[113] On 15 February 2016, Fry deleted his Twitter account, after receiving criticism for a tweet about Jenny Beavan and her dress.[114] Fry alluded to this on an April 2016 episode of The Rubin Report in which he criticized groupthink mentality and stated that his return to Twitter was a "maybe".[115][116] He returned to Twitter in August 2016.[117]
Honours [ edit ]
Stephen Fry visits Nightingale House, a care home in London, in December 2009
In 1995, Fry was presented with an honorary doctorate from the University of Dundee, which named their main Students' Association bar after his novel The Liar. Fry is a patron of its Lip Theatre Company.[118] He also served two consecutive terms – 1992 to 1995 and 1995 to 1998 – as the student-elected Rector of the University of Dundee. Such was his popularity, he was unopposed when he sought re-election to office in 1995, and by the time he completed his second term in office, he had won the widespread admiration of the University's staff and students.[119][120] He was awarded the AoC Gold Award in 2004, and was entered into their Hall of Fame.[121] Fry was also awarded an honorary degree from Anglia Ruskin University in 2005.[122][123]
He was made honorary president of the Cambridge University Quiz Society and honorary fellow of his alma mater Queens' College, Cambridge. On 13 July 2010, he was made an honorary fellow of Cardiff University,[124] and on 28 January 2011, he was awarded an honorary doctorate at the University of Sussex, for his work campaigning for people suffering from mental health problems, bipolar disorder and HIV.[125] He is a Patron of the Norwich Playhouse theatre and a Vice-President of The Noël Coward Society.[126] Fry was the last person to be named Pipe Smoker of the Year before the award was discontinued.[127] In 2017, Fry became the latest patron of the Norwich Film Festival, and said he was "Very proud now to be a patron of a festival that encourages people from Norfolk, Norwich and beyond to be enchanted, beguiled and entranced by all kinds of film that might not otherwise reach them."[128]
In December 2006, he was ranked sixth for the BBC's Top Living Icon Award,[129] was featured on The Culture Show, and was voted Most Intelligent Man on Television by readers of Radio Times. The Independent on Sunday Pink List named Fry the second most influential gay person in Britain in May 2007; he had taken the twenty-third position on the list the previous year.[130] Later the same month, he was announced as the 2007 Mind Champion of the Year,[1] in recognition of the success of his documentary The Secret Life of a Manic Depressive in raising awareness of bipolar disorder. He was also nominated in "Best Entertainment Performance" for QI and "Best Factual Series" for Secret Life of the Manic Depressive at the 2007 British Academy Television Awards.[131] That same year, Broadcast magazine listed Fry at number four in its "Hot 100" list of influential on-screen performers, describing him as a polymath and a "national treasure".[132] He was also granted a lifetime achievement award at the British Comedy Awards on 5 December 2007,[133] and the Special Recognition Award at the National Television Awards on 20 January 2010.[134]
BBC Four dedicated two nights of programming to Fry on 17 and 18 August 2007, in celebration of his 50th birthday. The first night, comprising programs featuring Fry, began with a sixty-minute documentary entitled Stephen Fry: 50 Not Out. The second night was composed of programmes selected by Fry, as well as a 60-minute interview with Mark Lawson and a half-hour special, Stephen Fry: Guilty.[135] The weekend programming proved such a ratings hit for BBC Four that it was repeated on BBC Two on 16 and 17 September 2007. In 2011, he was the subject of Molly Lewis's song An Open Letter to Stephen Fry, in which the singer jokingly offers herself as a surrogate mother for his child.[136] In February 2011, Fry was awarded the Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism by the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University, the Harvard Secular Society and the American Humanist Association.[137]
In 2012, Fry wrote the foreword to the Union of UEA Students report on the student experience for LGBT+ members.[138] As recognition of his public support for LGBT+ rights and for the Union's report, the Union of UEA Students awarded him, on 18 October 2012, Honorary Life Membership of the Union.[139] In March 2014 Fry beat David Attenborough and Davina McCall to win the Best Presenter award at the Royal Television Society Programme Awards. The award was given for his BBC2 programme Stephen Fry: Out There.[140] In an episode of QI, "M-Merriment", originally broadcast in December 2015, Fry was awarded membership of The Magic Circle.
In 2017, the bird louse Saepocephalum stephenfryii was named after him, in honour of his contributions to the popularization of science as host of QI.[141]
Personal life [ edit ]
Fry married comedian Elliott Spencer in January 2015.[142] Fry is friends with Prince Charles, through his work with the Prince's Trust. He attended the Prince's wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles in 2005. Fry is a friend of comedian and actor (and Blackadder co-star) Rowan Atkinson and was best man at Atkinson's wedding to Sunetra Sastry at the Russian Tea Room in New York City. Fry was a friend of British actor John Mills.[143] His best friend is Hugh Laurie,[144] whom he met while both were at Cambridge and with whom he has collaborated many times over the years. He was best man at Laurie's wedding and is godfather to all three of his children.[145] Fry became a vegetarian in 2017,[146] having earlier expressed a desire to become so.[147]
A fan of cricket, Fry has stated that he is related to former England cricketer C. B. Fry,[148] and was interviewed for the Ashes Fever DVD, reporting on England's victory over Australia in the 2005 Ashes series. Regarding football, he is a supporter of Norwich City, and is a regular visitor to Carrow Road. He has been described as "deeply dippy for all things digital", claims to have bought the third Macintosh computer sold in the UK (his friend Douglas Adams bought the first two) and jokes that he has never encountered a smartphone that he has not bought.[149] He counts Wikipedia among his favourite websites "because I like to find out that I died, and that I'm currently in a ballet in China, and all the other very accurate and important things that Wikipedia brings us all."[150]
Fry has a long-standing interest in Internet production, including having his own website since 1997. His current site, The New Adventures of Mr Stephen Fry, has existed since 2002 and has attracted many visitors following his first blog in September 2007, which comprised a 6,500-word "blessay" on smartphones. In February 2008, Fry launched his private podcast series, Stephen Fry's Podgrams (now discontinued), and a forum, including discussions on depression and activities in which Fry is involved. The website content is created by Fry and produced by Andrew Sampson. Fry's weekly gadget column Dork Talk appeared in The Guardian from November 2007 to October 2008.[149] Fry is also a supporter of GNU and the Free Software Foundation.[151] For the 25th anniversary of the GNU operating system, Fry appeared in a video explaining some of the philosophy behind GNU by likening it to the sharing found in science.[152] When in London, he drives a dark green TX4 London cab.[153] This vehicle has been featured in Fry's production Stephen Fry in America.[154]
Sexuality [ edit ]
Fry struggled to keep his homosexuality secret during his teenage years at public school, and by his own account did not engage in sexual activity for 16 years from 1979 until 1995.[155] When asked when he first acknowledged his sexuality, Fry quipped: "I suppose it all began when I came out of the womb. I looked back up at my mother and thought to myself, 'That's the last time I'm going up one of those'."[156] Fry was in a 15-year relationship with Daniel Cohen, which ended in 2010.[157] Fry was listed number 2 in 2016 and number 12 in 2017 on the World Pride Power list.[158][159]
On 6 January 2015, The Sun reported that Fry would marry his partner, comedian Elliott Spencer. Fry wrote on Twitter: "It looks as though a certain cat is out of a certain bag. I'm very very happy of course but had hoped for a private wedding. Fat chance!"[160] Fry married Spencer on 17 January 2015 in the town of Dereham in Norfolk.[161]
Politics [ edit ]
Fry was an active supporter of the Labour Party for many years and appeared in a party political broadcast on its behalf with Hugh Laurie and Michelle Collins in November 1993. He did not vote in the 2005 general election because of the stance of both the Labour and Conservative parties with regard to the Iraq War. Despite his praise of the Blair/Brown government's work on social reform, Fry has been critical of the Labour Party's Third Way concept. Fry appeared in literature to support changing the British electoral system from first-past-the-post to alternative vote for electing members of parliament to the House of Commons in the Alternative Vote referendum of 2011.[162]
On 30 April 2008, Fry signed an open letter, published in The Guardian newspaper by a number of Jewish personalities, stating their opposition to celebrating the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel.[163] Furthermore, he is a signatory member of the British Jews for Justice for Palestinians organisation, which campaigns for Palestinian rights.[164] Fry was among over 100 signatories to a statement published by Sense About Science on 4 June 2009, condemning British libel laws and their use to "severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest".[165]
In August 2013, Fry published an "Open Letter to David Cameron and the IOC"[166] calling for a boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, due to concerns over the state-sanctioned persecution of LGBT people in Russia. Cameron stated on Twitter he believed "we can better challenge prejudice as we attend, rather than boycotting the Winter Olympics".[167][168] Adrian Hilton, writing in the Daily Mail, criticised Fry for not calling for a boycott of all Russian performing arts.[169][170] Fry responded by accusing the Daily Mail of being "against progress, the liberalising of attitudes, modern art and strangers (whether by race, gender or sexuality)".[170][171] Fry said in 2015 that the Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre "has done more to damage the Britain I love than any single person".[172]
In March 2014, Fry publicly backed "Hacked Off" and its campaign towards press self-regulation by "safeguarding the press from political interference while also giving vital protection to the vulnerable."[173]
On 18 May 2018, Fry participated in the semi-annual Munk Debates in Toronto, Canada, where he argued against political correctness on the Con side of the topic "Be it resolved, what you call political correctness, I call progress…" alongside Jordan Peterson, and in opposition to Pro side represented by Michelle Goldberg and Michael Eric Dyson.[174][175]
Poland controversy [ edit ]
On 6 October 2009, Fry was interviewed by Jon Snow on Channel 4 News[176] as a signatory of a letter to British Conservative Party leader David Cameron expressing concern about the party forming a political alliance with the right-wing Polish Law and Justice party in the European Parliament.[177] During the interview, he stated:
There has been a history, let's face it, in Poland of a right-wing Catholicism which has been deeply disturbing for those of us who know a little history, and remember which side of the border Auschwitz was on and know the stories, and know much of the anti-semitic, and homophobic and nationalistic elements in countries like Poland.
The remark prompted a complaint from the Polish Embassy in London, an editorial in The Economist and criticism from British Jewish historian David Cesarani.[178][179][180][181] Fry has since posted an apology in a six-page post on his personal blog, in which he stated:
I offer no excuse. I seemed to imply that the Polish people had been responsible for the most infamous of all the death factories of the Third Reich. I didn't even really at the time notice the import of what I had said, so gave myself no opportunity instantly to retract the statement. It was a rubbishy, cheap and offensive remark that I have been regretting ever since. I take this opportunity to apologise now. I said a stupid, thoughtless and fatuous thing. It detracted from and devalued my argument, such as it was, and it outraged and offended a large group of people for no very good reason. I am sorry in all directions, and all the more sorry because it is no one's fault but my own, which always makes it so much worse.[182]
Health [ edit ]
Fry has bipolar disorder.[183] His first diagnosis was cyclothymia, which he refers to as "bipolar lite".[184][185] Fry has spoken publicly about his experience with bipolar disorder, which was depicted in the documentary Stephen Fry: The Secret Life of the Manic Depressive.[186] In the programme, he interviewed other sufferers of the illness including Robbie Williams, Carrie Fisher, Richard Dreyfuss and Tony Slattery. He is involved with the mental health charity Stand to Reason[187] and is president of Mind.[1] In 2013, he revealed that, in the previous year, he had started taking medication for the first time, in an attempt to control his condition.[18] In 2018, alongside Nadiya Hussain and Olly Alexander, Fry was part of Sport Relief's attempt to raise awareness of mental health.[188]
In 1995, while appearing in the West End Cell Mates, Fry had a nervous breakdown and walked out of the production, causing its early closure and incurring the displeasure of co-star Rik Mayall and playwright Simon Gray.[189] Fry went missing for several days and contemplated suicide. He later said that he would have killed himself if he had not had "the option of disappearing".[189] He abandoned the idea and left the United Kingdom by ferry, eventually resurfacing in Belgium.[190] Fry has attempted suicide on a number of occasions, most recently in 2012.[191] In an interview with Richard Herring in 2013, Fry revealed that he had attempted suicide the previous year while filming abroad. He said that he took a "huge number of pills and a huge [amount] of vodka" and had to be brought back to the UK to be "looked after".[192]
In January 2008 Fry broke his arm while filming Last Chance to See in Brazil.[193] While climbing aboard a boat, he slipped between it and the dock, and, stopping himself from falling into the water, his body weight snapped his right humerus. The resulting vulnerability to his radial nerve – which affects use of the arm – was not diagnosed until he saw a consultant in the UK.[194]
Appearing on the BBC's Top Gear in 2009, Fry had lost a significant amount of weight, and explained that he had shed a total of 6 stone (84 lb; 38 kg), attributing the weight loss to doing a lot of walking while listening to downloaded audiobooks.[195] Fry is between 6 feet 4 inches (1.93 m) and 6 feet 5 inches (1.96 m) in height.[196][197] Fry has stated that he is allergic to champagne[198] and bumble bee stings.[199] Fry has prosopagnosia, or face blindness.[200][201]
In February 2018, Fry announced via a video that he had had an operation to treat prostate cancer, involving the removal of that organ and 11 adjacent lymph nodes, and he was recovering from the surgery. He described the cancer as aggressive and said that early intervention had saved his life.[202][203]
Views on religion [ edit ]
Fry has repeatedly expressed opposition to organised religion, and has identified himself as an atheist and humanist, while declaring some sympathy for the ancient Greek belief in capricious gods. In his first autobiography he described how he once considered ordination to the Anglican priesthood, but came to the conclusion that he "couldn't believe in God, because [he] was fundamentally Hellenic in [his] outlook."[204] He has stated that religion can have positive effects: "Sometimes belief means credulity, sometimes an expression of faith and hope which even the most sceptical atheist such as myself cannot but find inspiring."[205]
In 2009, The Guardian published a letter from Fry addressing his younger self, explaining how his future is soon to unfold, reflecting on the positive progression towards gay acceptance and openness around him, and yet not everywhere, while warning on how "the cruel, hypocritical and loveless hand of religion and absolutism has fallen on the world once more."[206] Later that year, he and Christopher Hitchens participated in an "Intelligence Squared" debate in which they argued against Ann Widdecombe and Archbishop John Onaiyekan, who supported the view that the Catholic Church was a force for good. Fry and Hitchens argued that the church did more harm than good, and were declared the victors after an audience vote. Fry attacked the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality and denounced its wealth.[207]
In 2010, Fry was made a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association, stating: "it is essential to nail one's colours to the mast as a humanist."[208] Later that year, Fry joined 54 other public figures in signing an open letter published in The Guardian stating their opposition to Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United Kingdom being a state visit.[209] On 22 February 2011, Fry was presented with the Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism by the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University.[210][211]
When interviewed in 2015 by veteran Irish broadcaster Gay Byrne, Fry was asked what he would say if he came face-to-face with God. Fry said: "Bone cancer in children, what's that about? How dare you? How dare you create a world where there is such misery that's not our fault? It's utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"[212] Within days, the video was viewed over five million times.[213] Fry later stated he did not refer to any specific religion, and said: "I said quite a few things that were angry at this supposed God. I was merely saying things that Bertrand Russell and many finer heads of the mind have said for many thousands of years, going all the way back to the Greeks."[214] Because the God who created this universe, if it was created by God, is quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac.'[215] In May 2017 it was announced that Fry, along with broadcaster RTÉ, were under criminal investigation for blasphemy under the 2009 Defamation Act, following a complaint from a member of the public about the broadcast: the case was dropped after the police confirmed that they had not been able to locate a sufficient number of offended people.[216]
Business [ edit ]
In 2008, Fry formed SamFry Ltd, with long-term collaborator Andrew Sampson to produce and fund new material and manage his official website.[217] Fry is the co-owner, with Gina Carter and Sandi Toksvig, of Sprout Pictures, an independent film and television company.[218]
Computing and software freedom [ edit ]
In 2008, he appeared in a film made by the Free Software Foundation to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the GNU Project to create a completely free operating system.[219] In the film Fry explains the principles of software freedom central to the development of the Linux and GNU software projects.[220]
Bibliography [ edit ]
As author [ edit ]
Fiction:
Non-fiction:
Autobiography:
Fry, Stephen; Laurie, Hugh (1990). A Bit of Fry and Laurie . Mandarin. ISBN 978-0-7493-0705-9.
Fry, Stephen; Laurie, Hugh (1991). A Bit More Fry and Laurie . Mandarin. ISBN 978-0749310769.
Fry, Stephen; Laurie, Hugh (1992). 3 Bits of Fry and Laurie . Mandarin. ISBN 978-0434271931.
Fry, Stephen; Laurie, Hugh (1995). Fry and Laurie 4. Mandarin. ISBN 978-0749319670.
Audio books [ edit ]
Fry, Stephen (2017). Fry's English Delight . Audible Studios. ISBN 978-1536635058.
Fry, Stephen, (2009). Short Stories by Anton Chekhov (Stephen Fry Presents). ISBN 978-0007316373
As contributor [ edit ]
Forewords [ edit ]
Højer, Torsten, ed. (2016). Speak My Language, and Other Stories: An Anthology of Gay Fiction. Constable & Robinson. ISBN 978-1472119971.
References [ edit ]
Academic offices Preceded by
Paul Henderson Scott Rector of the University of Dundee
1992–1998 Succeeded by
Tony Slattery
Categoty:Criticism of political correctness ||||| The author and broadcaster returned to the micro-blogging site after a four-day absence, sharing a link to a blog post in which he declared his belief that women are in fact capable of enjoying sex.
Fry, who is openly homosexual, found himself at the centre of a row at the weekend after he claimed that women only go to bed with men "because sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship".
He added: "If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f------- rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush."
The 53-year-old faced a storm of criticism after the comments were published in a Sunday newspaper and responded by announcing his departure from Twitter in an angry post on the micro-blogging website.
He wrote to his 1,918,518 followers: "So some f----- paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the Antichrist. I give up."
Fry followed the first message with a second that simply read: "Bye bye" and changed his biography to read: "No longer in service".
His departure prompted a flurry of panic among his millions of followers who flooded Twitter sympathetic messages bearing the hash-tag #weloveStephenFry.
It came a year to the day after Fry temporarily abandoned Twitter because he thought there was "too much aggression and unkindness around".
But he returned for the second time today to share the link to his latest blog post and write: "Hello there! Thought it was time I had a little blog. To set the record straight. Or straightish."
Explaining his decision to leave on his blog, he wrote: "You may wonder why I duck out of Twitter at such times: well it may seem pusillanimous but it’s really, as I have said, just to avoid being sympathised with or told about an article I would otherwise never have got wind of. I soon enough slink back and before long it’s as if nothing happened. Clears the air. Does good on all sides."
The broadcaster also declared that he would never give another print interview, any more than he would consent to be: "mugged, raped or burgled".
He said that he did not mean his original remarks to be taken as "some eternal gender truth" and said he was simply "taking a thought for a walk".
Fry added: "I know that women enjoy sex. If women also say (and I’m in no position to agree or disagree with them) that they have as equally insistent and urgent libidos as men then I have no doubt that must be true also. It is perhaps sad to think that they are as pathetically in the grip of a base and humiliating need to get their rocks off as men are, but if that is the case then that is the case and god knows I’m no expert on the subject."
His return was met with delight by his legion of loyal fans on Twitter.
One woman, tweeting under the name bonniegrrl, wrote: "Twitter without @StephenFry is like a cupcake without icing! Thank the Bluebird his bio now says: "Normal service being resumed..."
Another user wrote to Fry: "Glad you're ok. You left us alone with the haters - you have to ignore them as we do." ||||| The whole silly stick…
I suppose the keenest disappointment I feel about the past week and the almost incredible weirdnesses it has brought in its train is the idea that there are people out there who actually swallow the notion that I am so stupid as to believe that women don’t enjoy sex. That I not only believe it but that I am dense, dotty and suicidally deluded enough to make a public declaration of such a crazed belief.
Let me now come out and say before we go any further that I entertain no such notion. Much as you may wish to think me a compound of the most misogynistic, ignorant, sexist and antediluvian pig who ever trod the planet I can truly report that I know and love enough women to be quite assured of the fact that women do indeed enjoy sex. I would have to ignore evolution, precedent, personal experience and the empirical observation of vibrator sales and teenage pregnancies and all kinds of obvious and unavoidable facts in between to believe anything else. And yet the public perception appears to be that I have made a statement that proves I think otherwise. Any number of self-righteous, indignant and contemptuous figures have (if I have understood aright) come out to condemn me for opinions that I have never even held. I say “if I have understood aright” because I have not read a single newspaper article on this whole issue and I may well have got hold of the wrong end of the whole silly stick. I am going by the maddeningly well-meaning but wholly unwanted information given to me by others.
But I repeat: it is not the fury, the insult, the hysteria, the tut-tutting, the head-shaking or indeed the intemperate abuse that has apparently come from some quarters, none of those have astonished me so much as the disappointingly wholesale acceptance by so many individuals that I might genuinely have been such a twatty prune as ever to have meant such a bizarre thing. Many people have by turns condemned me or sympathised with me or even agreed with me, but very few have had the perception or necessary understanding of the British press and its ways to get the obvious point that, guilty of all kinds of crimes as I may be, I am happily guiltless of the mad crime of thinking that women don’t enjoy sex. But I dare say I shall now go to my grave being thought of as someone who does hold such a belief, much as I will go to that grave being thought of someone who “attacked” the Pope prior to his UK visit, although I never did any such thing – indeed I went out of my way to avoid attacking him.
How can we unpick this whole sorry business? It may be that you haven’t the faintest idea what I’m talking about. So we should begin by telling the story of Stephen and Women and Sex, such as I understand it. Here goes.
How it happened
For reasons that should be obvious now if they weren’t before, I don’t give print interviews. I never consent to them any more than you, dear reader, would voluntarily consent to being mugged, raped or burgled, but when under pressure I will compromise by agreeing to do a profile for some small magazine or other. I say “under pressure” because as an actor, writer and presenter, publicity duties routinely go with my profession. It is written into contracts that if I accept a TV, film or writing job that I must agree to a “reasonable” number of press requests. Because I am fortunate enough to be a busy soul there will be periods when three, four, five or six different projects will come to fruition all at the same time and I will have to sit down with the publicity people from each project and barter. I will agree to radio, online and TV interviews and then, heart in mouth, consent to one or two local or specialised print organs.
You may not believe this from my hideous omnipresence but my preferred number of publicity assignments is exactly zero. If I could get away with NO radio interviews, NO magazine profiles, NO television chat shows, NO bookshop signings, NO stage events then I would. All those who know me and work with me will confirm this. I am a very very reluctant mule when it comes to these awful moments of necessary negotiation with the publicity people attached to books and films and TV series. “Must I?”, “Oh god please let me off…”, “Surely I’m don’t need to do this?” I am as aware as you and as aware as the battalions of people who clearly loathe the sight and sound of me that my media presence can appear to be ubiquitous, overexposed and entirely de trop.
This year has been one where, whether I like or not, I have been hugely in the public gaze. A big book, goodness knows how many TV programmes and a slew of concatenating public appearances have combined to make me look like a publicity hungry media whore of the worst kind. My god have I been aware of that. Well I shan’t overdo it. If you combine the lecturing and appearing and speaking and chat-showing and launches and lunches and award ceremonies and everything else you get a severe case of Too Much Fry. I have a strong suspicion that even my mother thinks there’s a superfluity of Stephen. And who can blame anyone for wishing I wouldn’t pop up quite so much?
So, to return to the business of Women and Sex. I kept to my rule and consented to no print interviews earlier this year when my book came out. I did however agree to do one profile for a small gay glossy called Attitude. I thought it was a harmless way of supporting a specialist periodical. The fact is, and there are witnesses to it, I only agreed out of kindness. What an idiot I am. A misplaced sense of community spirit that went ludicrously awry…
The Hippo with Attitude
Anyway, I did a photo-shoot for the magazine, during which and after which I conversed with a profiler. I can’t remember his name and I haven’t actually read the article he wrote as a result. They sent me three copies of the magazine and I looked at the photo on the front cover and now the magazines lie piled up somewhere. However vain, smug and self-worshipping you may think me, and I’m aware that many think me a revolting compound of all those things, I can promise you that I almost never watch the programmes I make nor do I read articles about me or interviews that I’ve given. Nor would you if you were me. Well, I chatted to this fellow on the day; he seemed very nice and very charming and we had a pleasant, relaxed and easy conversation. That’s the word, a conversation. I remember very little of it, but I can picture the narrow little room in which the latter part of it took place. At some point we chatted about gay sexuality – well, you would wouldn’t you, for a gay magazine? – and as part of that conversation I repeated the old canard about how men, unlike women, were cursed with their uniquely pressing and annoying libidos. Straight men I have known have often (of course mostly in a kind of bitter jest) said how much they envied gay people the simplicity of their erotic lifestyles (cottaging and cruising and so on) and I vamped for a while on that theme. I do not believe it as some kind of eternal gender truth, I was simply taking a thought for a walk, I was “playing gracefully with ideas” to repeat Oscar’s great phrase, or at least attempting to do so. But the important thing to remember is that the subject was not straight female sexuality, but gay male sexuality. It’s the only sexuality of which I have direct experience and how could I presume to speak of any other?
Was it naïve in me that it never for a second crossed my mind that this conversation would be sold on to other papers? That it would be “picked up” and make a disastrous move from being a conversation to some kind of public “declaration”? “Stephen Fry declares that women don’t enjoy sex.” It was as if I had called a press conference in order to give the world the benefit of my wisdom. For heaven’s arsing sake. Aside from anything else, the whole exchange was a steal from a book I wrote almost twenty years ago called The Hippopotamus in which a rancid, cantankerous old poet called Ted Wallace (loosely based on a compendium of Simon Gray, Kingsley Amis, John Osborne and others) bewails his inability to get his end away as easily as his gay friends appear to and so goes on about how women don’t really have the same urges as men. That was the whole point, it was a comic silliness aimed at a gay readership.
Ill-judged
At a time when morale is low in the gay community (a chronic rise in homophobia, teenage suicides, gay bashing and religious intolerance) I thought it worth making the light enough point that in some ways you could see the male gay life as a lot easier than the male straight life. But to read anything more into it than that is either wilful or stupid. I know that women enjoy sex. If women also say (and I’m in no position to agree or disagree with them) that they have as equally insistent and urgent libidos as men then I have no doubt that must be true also. It is perhaps sad to think that they are as pathetically in the grip of a base and humiliating need to get their rocks off as men are, but if that is the case then that is the case and god knows I’m no expert on the subject and have no right either to confirm or deny the proposition. It simply isn’t my business to pronounce on something that I know nothing of and I’m sorry if the very idea of my even touching on the topic is deemed offensive, inappropriate and outrageous by authorities on gender issues, if such authorities exist. As a gay man, female sexuality is patently a closed book to me. I had fondly imagined that in a free and open society one might be allowed to play with such ideas in a reasonable spirit of debate, but it seems not. It seems that such a conversation was offensive, ignorant, arrogant … god knows what else. Ill-judged it most certainly was.
Spank me with a fly-whisk
You will perhaps say that after nearly 30 years in the public realm I should have known better than to allow myself to have a free-wheeling happy, explorative and silly conversation with any journalist. Maybe I should have guessed that the interviewer wanted not an interview but a story. I should have known that comic exaggeration, so much the chief mode of a humorist, can easily be made to look bad when wrenched from context and nailed up as a proclamation. I admit that I do have a sometimes disastrous tendency, when asked a question, to answer it, often jokingly, or in the interests of ventilating a new thought that has struck, or more or less as the mood takes me but certainly too much without any consideration of the possible consequences. I am not, after all, a politician who has to weigh every syllable and its chances of giving offence. Maybe I should be more aware that those who wish me ill are always likely to seize on such instances and use them as a fly-whisk with which to spank me.
What the Papals Say
The whole Pope business, you might argue, should have warned me plainly. I was one of dozens, scores almost, of signatories to a letter sent to the editor of a low-circulation serious newspaper which suggested (mildly enough I thought) that the pontiff, while welcome (the letter, which I had no hand in writing, used that word) to Britain should not perhaps have his visit paid for out of the public purse. Instead of letting such a letter drop like a flat cowpat onto an uncaring field of public indifference, the press decided to publicise it widely and shriekingly to turn it into a great scandal. For some reason they singled me out as the figure most responsible for it and before long I was Fry the anti-catholic, Fry the Pope-basher, Fry the atheistic hate-monger. Weird, worrying and barely sane.
Am I that important? Should a letter to the Guardian in which I was a fractional part have been talked up into a cause célèbre for which I was judged almost uniquely responsible? Should a gamesome conversation in Attitude magazine be blown up into a major controversy that occupies acres of print? Surely I’m just a writer and actor? Just a nobody whose opinion is worth no more than anyone else’s? Indeed isn’t that the whole thrust of the articles written deploring my sillinesses? Bloody luvvie, who does he think he is? Well, then, why publicise and bring my worthless opinions so sharply front and centre? They can’t have it both ways. They pick up otherwise ignored articles, fulminate against them and in doing so accuse me of pushing myself forward! If the mainstream media ignored the frankly insignificant articles in which I appear almost no one would hear of them. All they have to do is ignore me, instead of which they big up everything they can find which involves me and then follow up their irritation with outraged expressions of annoyance at how prevalent I am. Well they are the ones who make me prevalent. It’s all rather potty and in the end all one can do is giggle at such farcical nonsense.
Unread
Having said all this I have to repeat my confession. I have literally no idea what has been said about me over the past week. When I say that I do not read papers I mean it. For 12 years I have assiduously avoided them, the British ones at any rate. Occasionally I will see an article online, and during the Pope debacle I was sent jpeg images of a front page which alerted me to the besotted and obsessional problems that the Daily Mail in particular has with me and my existence.
Advertisement
I was made aware by wild flutterings in the Twitter dovecots and incessant sympathetic tweets earlier this week (before I hastily disengaged from the service in order to save myself from more unwelcome details), that the press had picked up on the Attitude article and that all kinds of figures had then expatiated on my lunacy and folly in different newspapers over the next few days. And that this was followed by other papers taking the opportunity to give me the damned good kicking that a swine like me so richly deserves.
You may wonder why I duck out of Twitter at such times: well it may seem pusillanimous but it’s really, as I have said, just to avoid being sympathised with or told about an article I would otherwise never have got wind of. I soon enough slink back and before long it’s as if nothing happened. Clears the air. Does good on all sides.
So how do I feel about it all? Well, these hullabaloos tend to follow an established pattern. First outrage, then hurt, next amusement and finally the whole thing is forgotten.
And what do I learn from it? Hm. That’s harder.
Never ever read any tweets or direct messages sent to you the moment you get wind of a media shit storm brewing No more print interviews, Stephen. No matter how small and worthy the publication you can’t be trusted not to say something that will make you look a tit when reproduced elsewhere. Pretend you’re a politician and only say things after weighing all the consequences and potential offence caused.
Let’s be honest, I’ll never stick to point 3. I’m probably doomed to lurch from embarrassing moment to embarrassing moment for the rest of my life. Heigh ho.
Fool Britannia
I write this on an aeroplane bearing me to Los Angeles for my annual date with the Britannias, BAFTA’s American award ceremony, an evening I’ve intermittently hosted over the last decade or so. I suppose there might be British print journalists on the BAFTA red carpet tonight and I suppose I might have to find a way to avoid saying something monumentally stupid that finds its way back to Britain. If that’s the case … don’t let me know. Agreed? Hurrah. We have a deal.
Sometimes I have to pinch myself. I am sitting on an aeroplane writing a blog which tries to reassure the world that I am quite aware that women enjoy sex. No one can say my life isn’t unpredictable, interesting and … well, Fryish…
xxx | He's baaaack. Actor and broadcaster Stephen Fry has returned to Twitter after he quit in a snit over the uproar triggered by his comments that women don't like sex because they don't "shag" in bushes. Fry declares he's neither an "antediluvian pig" or a "twatty prune," and is "quite assured of the fact that women do indeed enjoy sex." He posted his comments in a lengthly blog linked to his first new Twitter message vowing to set the record "straightish." He realizes his comments were "offensive, ignorant, arrogant," but he was simply "taking a thought for a walk" during the magazine interview that triggered the hoopla, and now wants to "slink" back to Twitter "as if nothing happened," he notes. The popular gay actor, who has a recurring role on US TV playing a shrink in the series Bones, vows to do his best to avoid future print interviews, comparing the experience to being "mugged, raped, or burgled," reports the Telegraph. He admitted at an appearance in Los Angeles last night: "As a gay man, female sexuality is patently a closed book to me." |
Nathan Carman said Wednesday that his grandfather was "like a father to me" and he criticized The Courant for reporting that he was a suspect in the man's 2013 shooting death.
"He loved me very dearly," Nathan Carman said of John Chakalos. "I was like a son to him; he was like a father to me."
Nathan Carman was found floating on a raft in the Atlantic Ocean Sunday by a passing freighter, more than a week after he and his mother, Linda Carman, 54, of Middletown set off on a fishing trip in a 31-foot aluminum boat named The Chicken Pox from Point Judith, R.I.
He told U.S. Coast Guard officials that the boat sank on Sept. 18. His mother is presumed dead.
On Wednesday, The Courant reported that court records show that Carman, 22, was a suspect in the unsolved 2013 fatal shooting of his grandfather in Windsor.
In July 2014, Windsor police submitted an arrest warrant for Carman on a murder charge, but the warrant was returned by the prosecutor unsigned the next day, according to a warrant that police used to search Carman's apartment in Middletown, where he lived at the time.
Recording of Coast Guard officials speaking to Nathan Carman after he was rescued at sea. Recording of Coast Guard officials speaking to Nathan Carman after he was rescued at sea. SEE MORE VIDEOS
The search warrant indicates the arrest warrant was returned with a "request for further information." Carman was not charged. The chief state's attorney's cold case unit is assisting Windsor police in the investigation, but no arrests have been made in the murder, authorities said.
On Wednesday, he declined to talk about what happened to his grandfather. But Carman spoke of the time at sea.
"All I'm going to say right now to you is that a terrible tragedy happened," Carman, who has a home in Vernon, Vt., said Wednesday in a telephone interview. "I'm lucky to be alive, I lost my mother and very, very difficult people, especially The Hartford Courant are trying or, raking up the time when I lost my grandfather. [He] was like a father to me and casting that in just a very, very wrong light."
Clark Carman, Nathan's father, was in Middletown on Wednesday at Linda Carman's house. He said Nathan, who is physically well but "shaken up," needed some time to himself to unwind. Clark Carman lives in California but is retired and will stay in the area for the foreseeable future, he said.
He said when Nathan was rescued after drifting in the Atlantic Ocean for eight days, crew members aboard the freighter Orient Lucky spotted the life raft as they were walking on the ship's deck during the day.
"The ship was passing by and two crew members were walking from the stern to the bow, and all of a sudden one spotted him and they alerted the captain and stopped the ship and turned around," he said. "It was just a miracle he was found. He said the whole time he was out there, he saw one other ship and it was very distant."
Clark Carman said he was shocked that his son was considered a suspect in the death of his grandfather.
"He was a suspect because he was the last one to see my father-in-law alive," he said. "The kid was so devoted to him. There were only two people in his life, his mother and his grandfather. There was no motive. There was nothing to gain with John dying, he had everything to lose. He's not the type of individual who's aggressive. He'd walk away from a situation rather than attack. Really it's not in his mental makeup."
An attorney who once represented Linda Carman, Gerald Klein, said she told him Nathan Carman would not have hurt Chakalos.
"She was absolutely convinced that Nathan was innocent," Klein said.
Patrick Raycraft The state has posted a billboard on Interstate 91 which says the family is offering a $250,000 reward for any information on the death John Chakalos. The state has posted a billboard on Interstate 91 which says the family is offering a $250,000 reward for any information on the death John Chakalos. (Patrick Raycraft) (Patrick Raycraft)
A neighbor said Nathan Carman had moved into the Vermont house about two-and-a-half years ago. The neighbor said he kept to himself and was often seen working on the house by himself. Newly installed windows still had Andersen stickers on them, many were open without screens. The front door has no a doorknob. Building debris was strewn across the lawn.
On Monday, South Kingstown, R.I., police searched the home, located not far from the Massachusetts border. Carman and his mother had left on their fishing trip from Ram Point Marina in Wakefield, R.I.
Police obtained the search warrant as part of the missing person investigation.
A neighbor said at least eight law enforcement cruisers, including the local sheriffs department and state troopers, were at Carman's house Monday night, and authorities with flashlights went through each level of the four-story home from 6:45 to about 9:45 p.m.
South Kingstown Det. Lt. Alfred Bucco III wrote in his application for the warrant that police were seeking documents, maps, global positioning devices, computers, hand-held electronic devices and books that would provide information about the Carmans' location or destination. Police were also seeking receipts for purchases of boat parts or equipment for repairs to Carman's boat.
"This investigation revealed that Nathan's boat was in need of mechanical repair and that Nathan had been conducting a portion of these repairs upon his own volition which could have potentially rendered the boat unsafe for operation," Bucco wrote in the affidavit. Police said they believed they could find evidence in Carman's house, including information about where he intended to fish, that would support a charge of "operating so as to endanger, resulting in death," according to the warrant.
Nathan Carman arrived in Boston Tuesday morning after being rescued by a freighter near Martha's Vineyard. Nathan Carman arrived in Boston Tuesday morning after being rescued by a freighter near Martha's Vineyard. SEE MORE VIDEOS
The search warrant indicates that police removed a modem, a GPS device SIM card and a letter written by Carman from the house. There is no indication whom the letter was written to. Police did not find a computer, the records show.
2013 Slaying
The details of the slaying of Carman's grandfather, John Chakalos, at his home on Overlook Drive in Windsor, are contained in the warrant application to search Carman's apartment in 2014.
The search warrant says Carman was the last known person to see Chakalos alive on Dec. 20, 2013, as the two were having dinner. The next morning, one of Chakalos' daughters found 87-year-old Chakalos dead in his home — shot three times in the head and torso.
The search warrant states that Carman, who was then 20, became a suspect after police interviewed his mother, Linda Carman, who told them that her son was supposed to meet her in Glastonbury at 3 that morning to drive to Rhode Island but didn't show up.
Police searched Nathan's Middletown apartment on George Street on July 18, 2014, and found a Remington tactical shotgun, a rifle scope and several boxes of ammunition, the search warrant states. The rifle did not match the caliber of the gun used to kill Chakalos, the search warrant says.
Carman told police he had experience shooting guns at shooting ranges. He also led police to a "cubby hole" in his grandfather's house where John Chakalos kept vintage World War II guns that no other family members knew about, the search warrant states. ||||| Nathan Carman arrived in Boston Tuesday after he was found in a lifeboat at sea. His mother is presumed dead after their boat sank.
MIDDLETOWN, Conn. — The 22-year-old man who survived a week at sea after a boating tragedy that led to his mother’s presumed death said Wednesday that he believed his vessel was seaworthy and that a multistate criminal investigation into the fishing trip had compounded his grief.
Nathan Carman, who was rescued on Sunday from a life raft about 115 miles off Martha’s Vineyard, said during a telephone interview he was “trying to come to terms with what seems like a fact: that my mom really is gone.”
Advertisement
“My understanding when we went out was that the boat was seaworthy,” he said. “Clearly something happened, but I don’t know what, and I don’t know how it could have been prevented.”
Authorities said Carman ventured some 80 miles farther out to sea than his mother, Linda, had expected. They are investigating whether Carman had made repairs to his 31-foot vessel that potentially made it unsafe.
Get Fast Forward in your inbox: Sign Up Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here
At the Rhode Island marina where Carman set sail, a boater told authorities Carman had taken the unusual step of removing the boat’s trim tabs, which keep the vessel from listing.
The developments came as court records showed that Carman was once a suspect in the 2013 shooting death of his grandfather, 87-year-old John Chakalos. The grandfather left an estate worth more than $42 million to his four adult daughters, including Carman’s mother, according to the Associated Press.
The records also allege that as a child Carman held another child hostage with a knife and that after his grandfather’s slaying some of his relatives were so fearful of him that they “hired armed private security to protect them in their homes.”
Advertisement
Carman said Wednesday he had nothing to do with his grandfather’s slaying and “it doesn’t feel good to be bringing up everything that I went through with the loss of my grandfather now at the same time that I’m trying to come to terms with the fact that my mom is really gone.”
The latest mystery began when Carman and his mother, of Middletown, Conn., set out from Point Judith, R.I., aboard the aluminum Chicken Pox on Sept. 17 at around 11 p.m. for an overnight fishing trip. Carman, who lives in Vernon, Vt., said he didn’t realize the boat was sinking “until it sank.”
“It was just very sudden and very shocking to be in the water, to first figure out where I was, and then everything after that: trying to find my mom, signal for her, and not being able to do that the next day and the next day until I was rescued,” he said.
He said he didn’t have time to radio for help, and swam to the life raft, which inflated automatically. He said he never saw his mother. After the Coast Guard had suspended a lengthy search, he was spotted by a Chinese freighter after he fired a flare to get the crew’s attention.
As Carman made his account public, police and court records filed in Connecticut in 2014 showed that although he had been a suspect in his grandfather’s death, a court determined there was insufficient evidence to arrest him.
The police affidavit filed in court showed that he had purchased a rifle in New Hampshire before his grandfather’s murder and that police had sought a warrant for his arrest in the slaying. The court denied the request, saying more information was required.
The court records said that Carman, who has Asperger’s syndrome, a high-functioning form of autism, “was capable of violence when his coping mechanisms were challenged” and that a tenant in his building told police he was “a time bomb waiting to go off.”
On Wednesday, Carman recalled his grandfather as “the most important person in the world to me.”
“He was like a father to me, and losing him was extremely difficult, both for myself and my family,” he said.
Police in Windsor, Conn., have said the slaying remains unsolved.
Carman, who was raised in Middletown, vanished when he was 17 after his beloved horse died, according to published reports. He was found four days later in Virginia.
His father, Clark, who flew in from California this week to meet his son after his rescue, said Wednesday that his son had lost the two most important people in his life.
“I know he would never do anything to harm them,” he said.
He said he doesn’t think his son’s autism has anything to do with what happened. He called his son “very functional.’’
Clark Carman described waiting in fear in California as his son and ex-wife were missing.
“There was nothing I could really do at that point,” he said.
The Chinese freighter that rescued his son was the only ship he saw in a week.
“It’s a miracle, really,” Clark Carman said.
On Monday, the South Kingstown, R.I., police department filed a warrant affidavit in support of a search of Carman’s Vermont home, seeking evidence of whether Carman should be charged with “operating to endanger, resulting in death.’’
“The investigation revealed that Nathan’s boat was in need of mechanical repair and that Nathan had been conducting a portion of these repairs upon his own volition which could have potentially rendered his boat unsafe for operation,’’ police wrote in the search warrant affidavit.
“The investigation has also revealed that Nathan had intended to go fishing farther off shore in a different location than what were his mother’s intentions and understanding,” police said.
Police recovered a Garmin SIM card, a letter from a pickup truck, and an Xfinity modem with cable.
Carman said he and his mother were trolling for fish the day after they left at Block Canyon, an area in the Atlantic Ocean about 100 miles off New York, when the engine failed and the boat began taking on water.
A friend of Linda Carman’s told police that she had repeatedly refused her son’s request that they fish in the “Canyons,’’ and always demanded they remain off Block Island, where they were supposed to be fishing for stripers.
But Carman told people at the marina where his boat was docked that he was planning a trip to the “Canyons,’’ police wrote.
Carman declined to say why he went fishing at Block Canyon but said he had explained it to the Coast Guard.
Mike Iozzi spoke with Carman at Ram Point Marina before Carman set off to sea. He said Carman was friendly but quiet.
“You had to pull the answers out of his mouth,” the 71-year-old said.
In the hours before he set out to sea, Carman was removing the trim tabs from his boat, according to Iozzi.
“They don’t make the boat respond well,” Carman told him, Iozzi recalled. Iozzi said he didn’t know what that meant — he and another boater said they would never remove their trim tabs. Still, Iozzi didn’t want to look over the young man’s shoulder.
Carman patched up his boat with sealant, Iozzi said.
“Whether it worked, I don’t know,” Iozzi said. “I don’t know what happened. The guy upstairs probably knows what happened.”
In Vernon, Vt., where Carman lives, a neighbor said Carman bought the old farmhouse about two years ago and began tearing off the second story and building three new stories, all by himself.
“I’d hear him pounding nails from daylight to dark,” said Maynard Rounds, who lives across the street. But he didn’t seem interested in striking up a friendship.
“He was not one to carry on a conversation,” Rounds said. “He kept his head down and said very little.” ||||| BOSTON (CBS) — A man who was rescued after spending a week at sea in a life raft was debriefed by the Coast Guard Tuesday in Boston after the search for his mother was called off. Authorities also searched his home for clues.
Nathan Carman, 22, arrived safely at a Coast Guard base in Boston Tuesday morning, though his mother, Linda Carman, 54, has not been found and is presumed dead.
Coast Guard vessel carrying Nathan Carman arrives at CG Base Boston. #wbz pic.twitter.com/zWwBNltEJO — Ben Parker (@radiobenparker) September 27, 2016
Just what happened to Linda Carman was not yet known. A search warrant was executed Monday night at Nathan Carman’s Vernon, VT home. Officers seized a modem, a Garman SIM card and a letter written by Nathan.
Nathan and his mother disappeared September 18 after leaving Point Judith, Rhode Island on a fishing boat named the Chicken Pox. A week later, the Coast Guard suspended their search for the pair.
After he was questioned Tuesday, Nathan left the Coast Guard base with his father.
The Carman family has had hard times. In 2013, Linda Carman’s father was found shot to death in his Windsor, Connecticut home. That crime remains unsolved. According to WFSB, Nathan Carman was “a primary person of interest” in the murder of his grandfather.
Nathan has Asperger’s syndrome, a higher-functioning form of autism.
Five years ago, he disappeared from his home, upset over the death of his horse, and was found days later in Virginia.
A police affidavit issued to obtain the search warrant of the Vermont home “indicates that Linda and Nathan had different intentions as to the final destination of the fishing trip.”
Linda, it states, thought they were going 20 miles off shore. Nathan, according to people he spoke with before he left, had other plans to take them roughly 100 miles out. “I thought he said the canyons which are off Block Island,” said Mike Iozzi who struck up a casual conversation with Nathan hours before he left the dock.
“I didn’t see him with fishing poles,” Iozzi told WBZ-TV. “I didn’t even see him with food.”
The affidavit also stated that Nathan’s boat was in need of mechanical repair.
On Sunday, Nathan was found drifting in an inflatable raft by the Chinese freighter Orient Lucky, about 100 nautical miles south of Martha’s Vineyard.
There was no mayday call and no radio transmission of any kind from the fishing boat, according to the Coast Guard. On Tuesday, the Coast Guard released audio of their conversation with Nathan after he was rescued by the freighter.
“Mom and I, two people, myself and my mom were fishing on Block Canyon,” Nathan said. “There was a funny noise in the engine compartment, I looked and saw a lot of water.”
“I had my mom bring in the reel, I brought the safety stuff forward,” Nathan said. “I was bringing one of the safety bags forward and the boat stopped out under my feet. When I saw the life raft, I did not see my Mom. Have you found her?”
Coast Guard Search and Rescue Controller Richard Arsenault responded, “No, we haven’t been able to find her yet.”
Nathan told Arsenault that after he got to the life raft, he began whistling and calling and did not see his mom.
Linda Carman had told her close friend that she and her son would take the boat out toward Block Island for an overnight fishing trip.
“I’m hoping for lots of answers,” said Sharon Hartstein, a family friend. “I want to know if there’s still hope for Linda, I want to know where they were, and what happened.”
The Coast Guard does not believe that Linda Carman could still be alive, so the search for her was terminated.
A freighter found Carman floating on a life raft about 100 nautical miles south of Martha's Vineyard. His mother is still missing. #Wbz pic.twitter.com/V4sCib79uN — Anna Meiler (@AnnaMeiler) September 27, 2016
Nathan survived with food and water in the raft, and was in good condition.
Coast Guard Petty Officer 3rd Class Nicole Groll said there are some lingering questions after an exhaustive search that failed to locate Nathan.
“He said his boat sunk off Block Canyon, and we scoured 62,000 nautical miles of sea,” she said. “He was found in the search area, his boat went down in the search area. Why didn’t he see us? Why didn’t we see him?”
“We want to know what we can do to make our search efforts better, so, god forbid there’s another person we’re searching for, we can do the very best we can to make sure that they’re found and brought home safely,” she added.
WBZ NewsRadio 1030’s Ben Parker reports | The case of a 22-year-old man with Asperger's rescued Sunday after eight days lost on the Atlantic Ocean got stranger Tuesday with revelations that police searched his home and that he was once a person of interest in his grandfather's murder, CBS Boston reports. Nathan Carman left Rhode Island for a fishing trip with his mother, Linda Carman, Sept. 18. Linda is now presumed dead. According to the Boston Globe, Carman was getting the life raft after his boat, the Chicken Pox, suffered engine trouble and started taking on water when he lost sight of his mother. "All I'm going to say right now to you is that a terrible tragedy happened," the Hartford Courant quotes Carman as saying. "I'm lucky to be alive." Police searched Carman's home on Monday, taking a modem, SIM card, and letter. They believe he may have been making repairs on his boat that made it unsafe. They also say "Linda and Nathan had different intentions as to the final destination of the fishing trip." And there are other questions: a witness says neither mother nor son had fishing gear or food with them; Carman claims the boat sunk within the Coast Guard's search area, but searchers never saw him or the boat; and there were no calls for help. Nathan's grandfather was shot and killed in 2013, and Carman was briefly a person of interest. He says the cases are "totally separate." “Losing my grandfather was like losing a father,” he tells the Globe. “Losing my mom—is losing my mom.” |
Our federal tax system relies on voluntary compliance with tax laws. It presumes that taxpayers understand the laws and are willing and able to follow them. If not, IRS must determine the reason and then act to restore compliance and maintain the flow of tax revenue. IRS traditionally has responded to noncompliance by using enforcement efforts such as auditing tax returns and computer matching data from third parties (e.g., banks and employers). Over time, IRS concluded that enforcement was essential to pursue intentional noncompliance but not to correct unintentional noncompliance. Because of this enforcement limitation and concerns about the level of noncompliance, IRS formulated a different compliance philosophy. Known as Compliance 2000, the philosophy envisioned using nonenforcement efforts to correct unintentional noncompliance and reserving enforcement efforts for intentional noncompliance. IRS first espoused this philosophy in 1988 and by the early 1990s had initiated many research projects across IRS’ 63 district offices to identify noncompliant market segments, root causes for the noncompliance, and innovative ways to improve compliance. Even so, noncompliance continued to result in major losses in tax revenue. IRS’ most recent estimate put the gross income tax gap—the difference between income taxes owed and voluntarily paid—at $127 billion for 1992 alone. IRS estimated total tax compliance to be about 87 percent—83 percent in taxes paid voluntarily and 4 percent in taxes paid after IRS enforcement. IRS data have shown such total compliance to be stagnant since the early 1970s. Concerns about these trends prompted IRS to create the Compliance Research and Planning approach in 1993. This new approach attempts to merge the Compliance 2000 philosophy with a rigorous compliance research system. By combining IRS’ National Office knowledge about research with its district knowledge about compliance and enforcement, IRS hoped to identify nonenforcement and enforcement efforts to help improve total compliance to 90 percent by 2001. This approach has required the establishment of new research methods, organizations, and tools. The research methods include a compliance research cycle that starts with identifying a noncompliant market segment and ends with using research results in ongoing compliance programs. The organizations include the National Office of Research and Analysis (NORA) in the Research Division and 31 District Offices of Research and Analysis (DORA). NORA has responsibility for developing and implementing the new approach. DORAs are responsible for researching national and district compliance levels and finding cost-effective wholesale solutions to noncompliance, with the support of three IRS functions—Examination, Collection, and Taxpayer Service. Appendix II discusses the research cycle and organizations. As planned, the major research tool will be the Compliance Research Information System (CRIS). CRIS is to be an integrated network of databases containing a sample of IRS data over multiple years for use in compliance research. Appendix III discusses CRIS. Our objectives were to (1) review the many lessons that IRS learned from past compliance efforts, including Compliance 2000, to identify the factors most critical to the success of the new compliance research approach and (2) analyze the current status of the new approach and its ability to incorporate these factors as well as help IRS achieve the goal of 90-percent total compliance by 2001. To accomplish each objective, we visited IRS’ National Office and all 31 DORAs, interviewing responsible officials and collecting relevant data. Our National Office work focused on NORA. We interviewed NORA officials and collected data on the plans for and status of the new research approach. We discussed the officials’ views on lessons learned from past research and factors critical to the success of the new approach. Our fieldwork focused on visits to all 31 DORAs to monitor implementation of IRS’ new approach. To ensure consistent data collection, we did 293 structured interviews. The interviewees included 31 District Directors; 31 DORA Chiefs; 92 Chiefs of Examination, Collection, or Taxpayer Service; and 139 DORA staff (about 80 percent of the staff at the time of our visits). Our interviews solicited information on the lessons learned and critical success factors as well as on the status of the new approach. We obtained information on all DORA staff, such as positions and education (see app. V), and on Compliance 2000 research projects (see app. I). After we finished our DORA visits in September 1995, events occurred that could affect the new research approach. We conducted structured follow-up interviews with NORA officials and the 31 DORA Chiefs to determine the real and potential effects of these events, including IRS budget cuts and postponement of TCMP. We did our work in Washington, D.C., and the 31 DORAs from April 1995 to January 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from you or your designee. On April 22, 1996, we obtained comments from responsible officials in IRS’ Compliance Research Division. Their comments are discussed on pages 18 and 19. IRS viewed its Compliance 2000 strategy as a way to advance voluntary compliance. The strategy differed from the traditional enforcement approach by recognizing that nonenforcement approaches, such as education and assistance, can boost compliance. To determine when it was best to use each approach, IRS sought to uncover root causes for noncompliance and distinguish between compliant and noncompliant taxpayers across market segments. Compliance 2000 did not work for various reasons. In 1992 testimony, we reported that IRS lacked the necessary compliance data and infrastructure to do research by market segments. We found that IRS had not tracked whether its districts started research projects on the basis of objective compliance data or researched the most noncompliant market segments. We concluded that Compliance 2000 was a worthy idea that needed careful implementation. We stated that IRS needed to use objective data to select research projects and develop an infrastructure for planning, managing, and monitoring the projects. An IRS Internal Audit report in December 1993 had similar findings. The report disclosed that 38 of 50 Compliance 2000 projects were traditional enforcement projects that the districts had renamed as Compliance 2000 projects. And IRS had no database to capture results or provide an inventory of the compliance issues covered. The report concluded that the projects did not represent rigorous research, the managerial controls were weak, and a management structure was needed to provide effective oversight. NORA officials acknowledged such problems and indicated that very few Compliance 2000 projects could be viewed as viable research. Even in the few projects that NORA officials viewed as viable, IRS had not created a database to show whether compliance increased and, if so, what actions prompted those increases. We sought to further confirm these problems by collecting data on Compliance 2000 projects as we visited the 31 DORAs. We confirmed that IRS did not track the methods and results of the projects. As shown in appendix I, we found that many projects were duplicated. Available records were insufficient for us to compare costs and benefits across the projects. We found that IRS learned many lessons about research from Compliance 2000. According to NORA officials, the major lesson was that IRS needed a totally new organization and approach because the decentralized approach under Compliance 2000 did not produce viable research. Our interviews at NORA and the 31 DORAs indicated that such lessons governed the design of the new approach, particularly those that IRS officials pointed to as factors critical to the success of this approach. These factors include the need for (1) support for the research across IRS, (2) objective compliance data that are readily accessible, (3) skilled staff, (4) a sound infrastructure to organize and manage the research, and (5) measures to evaluate how well the new approach is working. The next section discusses the potential of IRS’ new approach in the context of these five factors. IRS holds high hopes for its new compliance research approach in integrating the Compliance 2000 philosophy with efforts to boost compliance. To act on this potential, IRS has taken steps built on lessons learned from past efforts. While directives are important to set the vision, building support relies on collaboration. In this vein, NORA has developed a cooperative strategy to communicate the research vision, needs, and results as well as generate feedback on the needs of IRS districts and functions. Given such feedback, NORA plans to create a special unit to meet the needs for research on ways to better select and handle workload. NORA is also encouraging DORAs to provide short-term research assistance to districts and functions (e.g., electronic filing and earned income credit). Ultimately, NORA knows that the new approach will have to prove its worth to build the necessary staff support. IRS’ new approach depends heavily on CRIS. As envisioned, CRIS is to be IRS’ network of databases for identifying the nationwide and district compliance of market segments. IRS is implementing CRIS in the following three stages. Working File CRIS was used in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 for training DORA staff. It had 75 data elements limited to one market segment. Interim CRIS was delivered to all DORAs by fall 1995. It expanded to 800 data elements and samples of individual and business filers for all market segments. Final CRIS is slated to implement its first database, having over 2,500 data elements on a sample of 7 to 10 million individual filers, in fiscal year 1997. It is to interface with other systems being created to aid in storing data and assigning workload. It is expected to contain 3 years of data. On completion, CRIS is to have 10 databases, each with thousands of data elements. CRIS has been funded for $7 million to develop and maintain these databases over the next 5 fiscal years. If CRIS works, IRS would have an integrated network of recent compliance data. And, IRS research staff could quickly profile compliance by market segment. IRS expects CRIS to provide data on taxpayer compliance in (1) filing required tax returns in a timely manner, (2) accurately reporting information on tax returns, and (3) fully and timely paying taxes owed. Also, realizing that IRS data contain taxpayer and IRS errors, NORA has developed data validation standards. NORA officials believed that these standards will better ensure that the research stems from adequate data. Past research efforts highlighted the need for staff who had research skills. Toward that end, NORA devised a staffing plan that requires certain positions at each DORA, such as a chief, program analysts, and other generalists. NORA also created specialist positions that require skills in statistics, operations research, economics, and computers. Recognizing limitations in having such staff in the field and restrictions on external hiring given the redeployment agreement, NORA encouraged DORA chiefs to fill positions with the most qualified staff available. NORA expected the number of staff to initially total about six to eight per DORA and grow as workload dictated. NORA also devised a plan to train all DORA staff in research methods. Phase I training, which began in early 1995, described NORA, DORA, CRIS, profiling, statistics, and research methods. Phase II training includes advanced methods in statistics, research, and market segmentation. NORA is also offering customized training to meet the needs of DORA staff. IRS has laid the framework for the infrastructure it believes is needed to manage the new research approach. This framework includes NORA, DORAs, a research plan, and research methods. IRS has plans for other mechanisms to manage the research. NORA and DORA officials said research in the field has often suffered because research knowledge resided in the National Office, but knowledge about compliance and enforcement resided with district staff who usually lacked research skills. These officials said districts lacked commitment to do the research and use its results. NORA officials viewed the NORA/DORA framework as a way to correct these problems. Furthermore, IRS districts are forming Compliance Planning Councils (CPC) at the DORA level to build district support for compliance research, oversee district compliance programs, and provide a conduit to the three district functions. In summary, CPCs are to provide a multifunctional perspective in reviewing district compliance workload. At a minimum, each CPC is to consist of the DORA Chief and chiefs of the three functions. IRS is also forming nine Cooperative Strategy Working Groups (CSWG) to help with oversight, coordination, and implementation of the new approach. CSWGs are to make many of the decisions about compliance research, with the concurrence of the national director for compliance research. NORA is developing an annual research plan and a compliance research cycle. If implemented properly, both elements should create a common understanding of the research vision and enhance the quality of the research. The research plan prioritizes compliance issues and research efforts. The plan allocates resources across DORAs to meet expectations, within set time frames, on (1) establishing the new research approach, (2) helping IRS districts and functions to meet their compliance and enforcement needs, and (3) reducing the tax gap and improving compliance. The research cycle outlines the steps for all projects, as shown in figure 1. As shown above, the latter steps of the cycle produce research results that form the basis for establishing compliance workloads, as set in the compliance plan. Appendix II provides details on the research cycle and compliance plan. For fiscal year 1995, IRS measured the success of the new approach against expectations set forth in IRS’ Business Master Plan; those expectations focused on establishing all DORAs. For fiscal year 1996, success is to be measured against expectations set forth in the research plan. NORA officials acknowledged the need for more specific measures of success. Combining all five factors, IRS’ new compliance research approach offers potential for improving compliance. If implemented successfully, it also may enhance the effectiveness of the tax system. Rigorous research could help ensure that tax laws, regulations, and guidance are clear; taxpayers receive necessary assistance; paid preparers encourage compliance; and enforcement is cost effective. Integrating the research with ongoing programs could help meet these basic requirements, to the extent the research helps increase compliance and reduce taxpayer burden. In doing so, the research would co-exist rather than compete with these programs. Some obstacles have slowed implementation of IRS’ new compliance research approach. IRS has taken actions to overcome the obstacles but faces critical challenges in incorporating the success factors. NORA and DORA officials raised concerns about support for compliance research because of three types of tensions. Our interviews with 293 District Directors, CPC members representing the three functions, and DORA staff illustrated these concerns as well as mixed support for the new approach. For example, about 63 percent of those we interviewed believed that this approach will reduce the tax gap, and nearly 70 percent, who had knowledge of previous attempts, believed that it will be more cost effective. However, only 38 percent of those we interviewed believed that the approach will significantly contribute to meeting IRS’ 90-percent compliance goal by 2001. When asked why, most of these officials viewed this goal as too challenging and the time period as too short. Proponents of the new approach favored its systemic and objective nature. They viewed national research on market segments, by reaching more noncompliant taxpayers, as the way to significantly improve compliance. Opponents, believing that major compliance problems are well known, favored shifting the research resources into efforts involving tax simplification and legislative changes, such as tax withholdings and income reporting. NORA officials noted that compliance research offers the best way to identify and justify such efforts. The first tension dealt with changing the IRS culture. IRS has focused on maximizing revenue yield through enforcement instead of voluntary compliance through enforcement and nonenforcement efforts. Our DORA work showed that the three functions largely expected the research to aim at this traditional focus. Given concerns that it will not, only 34 percent of the Chiefs of Examination, Collection, and Taxpayer Service we interviewed at the 31 DORAs considered DORA to be a good investment of resources. NORA officials believed that these responses did not reflect the broad, multifunctional view needed to increase compliance. These differing views reflect, at a minimum, the tension over the new approach. A second tension involved pressures to quickly produce high-profile results. We heard this concern during interviews at all 31 DORAs. Interviewees doubted whether IRS would give the approach time to prove itself. They said IRS often expects results right away, but compliance research is unlikely to produce immediate benefits. The third tension dealt with directing 85 percent of the DORA work to national compliance issues, leaving the remainder to the discretion of the district. District officials, who believed that many compliance issues have a local flavor, generally wanted more control. NORA officials, as well as DORA Chiefs, saw a national focus as the way to help improve compliance and reduce the tax gap. NORA officials recognize the seriousness of these and other tensions that undercut support for the new approach. NORA officials have planned various efforts to educate and inform IRS management and staff at all levels on the new approach as well as to advance its cooperative strategy. IRS decided to open DORAs a few years before CRIS was finished to allow DORAs to become fully staffed and equipped, as well as to participate in the development of CRIS and learn about IRS data. While IRS has made progress, questions remain on whether CRIS will be completed soon enough to contribute to research on improving compliance by 2001. At the time of our DORA visits, only 19 percent of the DORA staff viewed the available data, which were from Working File CRIS, as sufficient to do their jobs. DORA staff complained that the data were outdated, inaccurate, and lacked compliance measures. After our visits, DORA staff began using data from Interim CRIS. The DORA Chiefs we interviewed during our follow-up work viewed the Interim CRIS as a far better system. However, only 39 percent of them thought the data were sufficient to do the work required at DORA. Among other things, they noted that Interim CRIS lacked historical data, compliance indicators, and enforcement actions against filed tax returns as well as on nonfilers. NORA officials acknowledged these problems but had viewed these earlier phases as training for DORA staff. They believed that the staff had sufficient data for such training and the assigned work. The officials said that Final CRIS and the data validation standards will address these problems and add discipline so that the staff only does the work made possible by the data. Even so, Final CRIS is developing more slowly than expected. NORA officials remain optimistic that its first database, involving individual filers, will be operational by fiscal year 1997. As for the other nine databases, such as for partnerships and corporations, IRS was not sure when they would be fully operational and how many can produce research results by 2001 on improving compliance. Furthermore, the postponement of TCMP heightens the need for finding other ways to measure reporting accuracy on filed returns. NORA officials told us that they viewed TCMP as a crucial part of CRIS because TCMP had been a proven way to measure reporting accuracy. Over three-fourths of the $94 billion tax gap for individuals in 1992 arose from noncompliance in reporting rather than in filing or in paying. IRS officials said that, without the randomness and comprehensiveness of TCMP, they doubted whether IRS will have a precise way to measure reporting compliance nationally or at the DORA level, or whether IRS will have a basis for identifying emerging noncompliance among market segments or tax issues. CRIS is using TCMP results for 1988, but these results will lose more of their usefulness with each passing year. NORA officials said they are not sure how they will measure reporting compliance. At the time of our visits, the 31 DORAs had 217 staff, varying from 4 to 12 staff at each DORA. Of those we interviewed, 85 percent of the District Directors and DORA Chiefs were satisfied with the number of staff, but 94 percent of the chiefs and 74 percent of the directors thought staffing should increase in the future; the rest were uncertain. Given IRS’ budget cut, DORA Chiefs expressed concern that staffing would not increase in fiscal year 1996 as anticipated. Figure 2 shows the number and types of positions for all 31 DORAs, excluding the 31 DORA Chiefs. The category of “other” includes Assistant DORA Chief, Diversity Coordinator, Fed-State Coordinator, Magnetic Media Specialist, Public Affairs Specialist, and Acting Team Leader. We analyzed the distribution of positions across the 31 DORAs. Our analysis showed that 21 DORAs lacked 1 or more of the required specialist positions involving economic, statistics, computer, and operations research skills. For example, Seattle had two program analysts, one operations research analyst, and one economist, while Los Angeles had five program analysts, two operations research analysts, and one Fed-State coordinator. Neither site had a statistician or a computer research analyst. Although over half of the DORA positions involved specialist skills, DORAs had difficulty finding such staff. Only 58 percent of the DORA Chiefs said their staff had the requisite background and skills; they pointed to gaps in skills such as statistics, economics, and operations research. Our analysis showed that 37 percent of the staff we interviewed had some research experience, and 5 percent had spent most of their career in a research capacity. Of DORA staff holding college or graduate degrees, about half of these degrees were in business or liberal arts; less than 30 percent related to specialist positions. Both NORA and DORA officials we interviewed pointed to the IRS redeployment agreement and limits on hiring staff from outside of IRS as barriers to getting the most qualified staff for doing research. Over 50 percent of the DORA staff were hired as redeployment eligible. Sixty-five percent of the District Directors and DORA Chiefs said the redeployment agreement limited their ability to staff DORAs with the most qualified employees. Because many DORA staff do not have the research skills needed, NORA is working on ways to share specialized skills across the research projects and DORAs. Plans call for identifying the necessary specialist skills before starting a project and finding specialists from NORA or the DORAs who can work on the project when needed. NORA officials said a project will not start if needed specialists cannot be found. NORA officials agreed that DORA staff could benefit from more specialized skills, but they were pleased with the staff overall and their ability to learn. Given these views, NORA has executed what it views as an aggressive training plan. As for phase I of the training, 94 percent of the DORA Chiefs viewed it as at least generally adequate; 83 percent of DORA staff agreed. Staff who thought the training could be improved wanted more training in statistics, data analysis, economics, research design and methodology, and computers. A NORA training survey of DORA staff also identified similar training needs. NORA officials said training in these areas is being developed. NORA has developed a plan for phase II training and a budget of $3.5 million. NORA has planned internal computer courses and external courses on topics such as research methods and use of research. NORA officials said that the training budget had been fully allocated as of March 1996, but that funding had not been obligated. If the funding is not received soon, projects may be delayed. IRS has not completed the infrastructure for planning and managing the research, although progress has been made. For example, until November 1995, NORA had not started to develop linkages with programs in the functions that used market segments due to other priorities. Until the linkages are developed, unnecessary duplication may occur and opportunities to improve these programs may be missed. NORA officials said linkages will be made when functions ask for profiles and research by market segment as well as through the compliance plan. Objective criteria for selecting research projects had not been fully established. Without such criteria, NORA cannot ensure that staff research the major areas of noncompliance. Our interviews and review of the research plan showed that many projects arose from districts’ or functions’ beliefs about the major areas of noncompliance. Other projects were selected with more objective data from TCMP, the tax gap, or other studies; however, such data reflected compliance in the 1980s. NORA officials acknowledged a desire for more objective and recent data in selecting projects but believed that enough of the initial projects dealt with known compliance problems to avoid wasted efforts. The officials said CSWGs are responsible for establishing criteria for selecting and ranking projects and are working with five DORAs on such criteria. CPCs also were not fully developed. As of December 1995, districts had established 28 of the 31 CPCs; most CPCs had only met a few times, largely to get organized. Although 55 percent of the CPC members we interviewed said CPCs were at least generally effective, 21 percent said they were not, and 24 percent thought it was too soon to tell. CPCs included members who managed the three district functions. If developed, CPCs could help link compliance research to the needs of the district functions. Starting in March 1996, NORA implemented a system to start tracking the status and results of research projects. NORA relies on DORA staff to input a lot of data about the projects and research into the system. However, controls over accurate and complete data entry have not yet been fully developed. IRS has not developed specific measures for evaluating the success of the new research approach. Of the 62 District Directors and DORA Chiefs we interviewed, 73 percent cited a need for better measures. Most of these interviewees suggested measuring impacts of the research on compliance, particularly by market segment or district. NORA and DORA officials believed that success will be based, in part, on the support and demand for research from the three functions. Two CSWGs were working on ways to measure success, including (1) a peer review system and (2) a quality review of the research process and its results. NORA expects them to be finished during the spring of 1996. Without good measures, IRS will not be able to objectively evaluate its new approach. IRS faces the challenge of developing valid measures that will be meaningful to customers inside and outside of IRS. IRS’ goal to increase total compliance with the tax laws to 90 percent by 2001 is a worthy one. IRS estimates have shown that decades of attempting to improve compliance through enforcement failed to raise total compliance above about 87 percent. IRS’ new approach of supplementing its enforcement efforts with rigorous research into the causes of noncompliance strikes us as being intuitively logical. On the basis of lessons learned from the past, IRS officials believe, and we agree, that among the factors needed to better ensure success of the new approach, at least five stand out in terms of relative importance: (1) support for the research throughout IRS, (2) objective compliance data that are readily accessible for research, (3) skilled staff capable of doing rigorous research, (4) an infrastructure for organizing and managing the research, and (5) measures to evaluate whether the new approach works. We identified several issues that IRS needs to address in terms of these five critical success factors. The mixed support we found for the new research approach has caused tensions within IRS that could have an adverse impact on potential success. The fact that IRS might not have objective data available when needed for the research effort may make it difficult to produce useful research results in a timely manner. Furthermore, unless specialized staff are available when and where needed, the research effort could also be hampered. Finally, IRS has not yet fully developed the infrastructure needed to plan and manage the research, nor does it have measures to use in evaluating the success of the new approach. IRS has taken or planned some actions to address these issues. It has developed mechanisms designed to build support for the new approach. Working with existing resources in the face of budget constraints, IRS has developed training and staff-sharing programs to help address specialized staffing needs. IRS is also working to (1) enhance the infrastructure by tracking projects and linking research and compliance programs and (2) develop measures for evaluating the success of the new approach. Effectively addressing each of these issues should enhance IRS’ potential for success. Thus, it is important that IRS monitor its progress in addressing these issues and position itself to take corrective action if and when needed. We recommend that the IRS Commissioner develop an approach for monitoring the effectiveness of mechanisms established to build support for the new approach as well as for the staff-sharing and training efforts that are under way and, if necessary, make modifications; devise a method to better ensure that reliable compliance data will be available when needed for the research effort, given the indefinite postponement of TCMP; set a schedule for completing CRIS, monitor its progress, and take the necessary actions to resolve identified problems; and establish milestones and monitoring mechanisms for (1) completing the infrastructure needed to organize and manage the research effort and (2) developing the measures needed for evaluating success. We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from senior IRS officials in a meeting on April 22, 1996. IRS officials included the National Director for Compliance Research, the Chief of National Office Research and Analysis, and a representative from IRS’ Office of Legislative Affairs. In general, these officials agreed that the report accurately reflects the key issues in IRS’ new compliance research and analysis approach. They further agreed with our conclusions and recommendations and noted the following actions were being planned or taken on each of our four recommendations. First, in developing an approach for monitoring mechanisms for building support and efforts in staff sharing and training, the IRS officials said they will be monitoring all such mechanisms and efforts, particularly use of the cooperative strategy and other outreach efforts about the new approach. Second, in devising a method to provide reliable compliance data, these officials acknowledged the problems with losing the comprehensive, top-down measures of TCMP but said IRS has sufficient compliance data in the short term for the research work to continue. Third, these officials said action is already being taken to set a schedule for completing CRIS, monitoring its progress, and resolving related problems. Recently, IRS has required all computer systems under development, including CRIS, to have established milestones and a completion schedule that will be monitored internally. Fourth, in establishing milestones and monitoring the completion of the infrastructure as well as of the measures, the IRS officials said the fiscal year 1997 research plan will provide the means for doing these activities. They said IRS’ new system for tracking the status and results of research projects is expected to be operational by June 1996, and measures for evaluating the success of the new research approach are being developed. This report contains recommendations to you. The head of a federal agency is required by 31 U.S.C. 720 to submit a written statement on actions taken on the recommendations to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight not later than 60 days after the date of this letter. A written statement also must be sent to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with the agency’s first request for appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of this letter. Copies of this report are being sent to interested congressional committees, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of the Treasury, and other interested parties. It will also be made available to others upon request. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. Please contact me on (202) 512-9044 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. This appendix contains a summary of the results from our data collection on Compliance 2000 Projects. We provided a data collection instrument to responsible officials at 31 District Offices of Research and Analysis (DORA) for completion during the summer of 1995. (DORAs are not an outgrowth of Compliance 2000. Compliance 2000 was a district (old 63-district configuration) configuration. However, we chose to collect data from the DORAs because many of the DORAs had received data from Compliance 2000 offices after they were closed.) Of the 31 DORAs, 28 reported information on 133 Compliance 2000 projects. We found that important information was unavailable for most of the projects. For example, none of the projects reported whether compliance improved or not. Of 133 reported projects, 70 reported no information on either the results or the resources spent. Of the 63 for which such information was available, 35 provided information on the resources, 37 provided information on enforcement results (e.g., dollars assessed and returns obtained), and 24 provided information on nonenforcement activities (e.g., number of seminars held and publications issued). Table I.1 provides this information by DORA. Furthermore, we noticed that many projects dealt with the same general topic, such as compliance in filing information returns on miscellaneous income, nonfilers, and tax-exempt organizations. Table I.2 shows that of the 133 projects, 72 duplicated at least one project. This appendix contains information on various aspects of the new compliance research approach. It provides details on the research infrastructure needed to sustain the new approach. As envisioned, the National Office of Research and Analysis (NORA) and the District Offices of Research and Analysis (DORA) will collaborate to conduct new activities that form a disciplined research cycle—Compliance Research and Planning Cycle. This cycle encompasses 10 steps in addressing a compliance problem. Table II.1 describes each of these steps. Measure levels of compliance across market segments in (1) filing timeliness, (2) reporting accuracy, and (3) paying taxes owed in full and on time. Identify and rank market segments with significant compliance problems. Profile market segments to identify patterns of noncompliance, validate their selection, and enrich the understanding of the common characteristics that distinguish a given segment from other segments. Identify potential treatments to improve compliance after determining and understanding the causes/reasons for noncompliance. Test treatments to determine if they have produced significant, measurable improvements in a market segment’s compliance level over an original baseline. Remeasure compliance levels and evaluate whether the applied treatments were effective in improving the compliance of market segment. Generate the compliance plan to drive all compliance-related workload for IRS. Allocate compliance resources to match needs with staff and other resources at national and district levels. Plan compliance workload to match staff (grade and skill levels) to the scheduled work. Select compliance workload by identifying cases, accounts, or groups of taxpayers to work in a way that will meet plan objectives within the district work plan schedules and resources. NORA is responsible for supporting, guiding, and coordinating work at DORAs. The first priority of NORA was to establish DORAs and ensure that they were staffed, equipped, and operational. NORA also is responsible for evaluating the overall research approach and its components. Specifically, NORA is to (1) work with all levels and functions in a consulting role to support market research activities, (2) assist National Office and field executives in institutionalizing Compliance 2000, (3) provide compliance data necessary to develop a multiyear strategic compliance plan, (4) develop new case selection criteria that are based on market research, (5) supply data to the national portion of the compliance plan, (6) propose national initiatives to improve compliance in selected market segments, (7) advise and issue progress reports to the Director of Research and Chief Compliance Officer, (8) review DORAs’ work to ensure that national program objectives are met, (9) ensure that DORAs provide quality service, (10) develop methods for measuring the compliance of various market segments, (11) ensure consistent and frequent communication and feedback with internal and external stakeholders, (12) ensure that DORA training needs are identified and met, and (13) provide guidance and control to DORAs in handling external data. The primary function of each DORA site is delivery of a local-level compliance research capability using local knowledge and resources. DORA staff are to be primarily responsible for providing information, guidance, and counsel to the district offices on methodologies and strategies that address areas of noncompliance, given resource allocation constraints, and compliance plan objectives. As DORA staff learn to do compliance research, they are expected, in the short term, to (1) learn proper research procedures and processes, such as techniques, methodologies and data analysis, data sources, security, and privacy issues; (2) research and evaluate local external data sources; (3) begin assessing the potential for additional market segments and estimating the nonfiler population; (4) learn elements and practice proper usage of internal and external data; and (5) provide data and measurements for past Compliance 2000 projects. The Cooperative Strategy Working Groups (CSWG) were established to design, plan, and implement decisions that help maintain the vitality of the new research approach. NORA and DORAs provide the members. Each group is to have a statement that describes its responsibilities, composition, and schedule. The groups are expected to develop guidelines to ensure the effectiveness of their work. However, interim guidelines to help get CSWGs started were developed by NORA. CSWGs are to be implemented in three stages: (1) “First-Wave,” by the beginning of fiscal year 1995; (2) “Second-Wave,” by the end of fiscal year 1995; and (3) “Longer Term.” Each stage represents a series of working groups. The First-Wave stage consisted of the Policy and Governance, Data Development and Planning, Education and Training, Profiling, and Communications cooperative strategy working groups. The Second-Wave stage consisted of the Compliance Studies and Tests, NORA/DORA Research Planning, and Systems Development cooperative strategy working groups. The Longer Term stage consists of the Resources Cooperative Strategy Working Group. The following describes each of these groups. Policy and Governance Cooperative Strategy Working Group: (1) identifies compliance research issues; (2) determines procedural requirements for NORA and DORAs; and (3) formulates and recommends policies and procedures to address those issues and requirements. Data Development and Planning Cooperative Strategy Working Group: (1) exercises oversight and operational roles in the design, development, acquisition, use, maintenance, and evaluation of internal and external data and (2) measures the support of compliance research operations. Education and Training Cooperative Strategy Working Group: carries out the oversight, development, and operation for internal and external training provided to NORA and DORA staff. Profiling Cooperative Strategy Working Group: (1) oversees market segmentation and profiling operations and (2) formulates and recommends profiling standard procedures and the design and testing of compliance measures. Communications Cooperative Strategy Working Group: oversees, develops, and maintains mechanisms and the media for communications on compliance research. Compliance Studies and Tests Cooperative Strategy Working Group: (1) oversees compliance studies and tests and (2) recommends compliance research standards for conducting, analyzing, and reporting compliance studies and treatment tests. NORA/DORA Research Planning Cooperative Strategy Working Group: (1) develops and provides input into the compliance plan and (2) reviews other IRS plans. Systems Development Cooperative Strategy Working Group: (1) oversees the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of the technology used in compliance research and (2) addresses issues regarding the hardware, software, and telecommunications surrounding compliance research. Resources Cooperative Strategy Working Group: (1) determines staffing and financial resources requirements for all compliance research and (2) ensures that resources are allocated according to the compliance plan. The Compliance Planning Council (CPC) is to be responsible for multifunctional integration, planning, and coordination of compliance activities within the District. Compliance activities are expected to focus on research, identification of market segments, and development of strategies to deal with noncompliant behavior. Specific activities of CPCs may include advising the District Director and assisting in the identification and prioritization of the DORA workload, approving and allocating resources to compliance treatment plans and other multifunctional compliance initiatives, monitoring ongoing progress of projects and initiatives, and ensuring consistent and frequent communication and feedback with internal and external stakeholders. CPC membership may consist of the (1) Chief of Examination, (2) Chief of Collection, (3) Chief of Taxpayer Service, (4) Chief of Criminal Investigation, (5) Chief of DORA, (6) Chief of Information Systems Division, (7) Disclosure Officer, (8) President of the National Treasury Employees Union, (9) Problem Resolution Officer, (10) District Counsel, (11) Appeals, and (12) Employee Plans/Equal Employment Opportunity. The research plan is to apply NORA and DORA staff resources to national workload during fiscal year 1996 and beyond. Resources are to be used efficiently to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. The plan is to link NORA/DORA work to IRS’ fiscal year 1996 Business Master Plan and to the major components of the tax gap. The research plan is to lay out research projects that can have a national impact on compliance and assigns the projects to one or more DORAs. It is to cover fiscal years 1996 through 1998, and be flexible enough to accommodate new opportunities and new research findings to redirect national efforts. The compliance plan is to set forth all compliance-related workload for IRS. The scope and duration of the activities it mandates are likely to occupy several years. The compliance plan is expected to comprise both enforcement and nonenforcement activities. For this reason, it is expected to mandate actions both for functions within the Chief Compliance Officer organization as well as for functions with Customer Service organizations. When the national component of the compliance plan includes activities that transcend Chief Officer organizational boundaries, it is to be issued jointly by the Chief Officers concerned. Once officially issued, the compliance plan is to become the basis for final resource allocations, functional workplans, and workload selections. This appendix contains additional information on the final Compliance Research Information System (CRIS) database. It provides more details on the CRIS infrastructure and types and sources of data required. As envisioned, CRIS will be the primary integrated research tool used for compliance research and analysis. Plans call for CRIS to be an integrated network of 10 databases containing a sample of internal, external, and multiyear data, which is to be accessible to national and district office personnel to support analyses of voluntary compliance rates and levels. CRIS is expected to enable IRS to develop working hypotheses on the means to increase voluntary compliance, test the hypotheses, evaluate the results, and make decisions on how to implement the new strategies. IRS also envisions that CRIS will improve both the quantity and quality of data as well as sophisticated analysis. The vast majority of CRIS data is expected to come from statistically reliable samples drawn from the following IRS data sources: (1) the individual master file and returns transaction file, (2) the business master file and returns transaction file, (3) various other internal master files, (4) results data from the Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program, and (5) various other taxpayer surveys and studies. The only external data planned for CRIS are census data. However, external data may be used for follow-on research after noncompliant market segments are identified by the objective application of CRIS measures to internal IRS sample data. External data sources will not be appended on a taxpayer-by-taxpayer basis to internal CRIS data. CRIS is designed to be a sample with no taxpayer identifiers. All internal CRIS data are to be transmitted electronically or via magnetic tape. External data are to be provided to the CRIS system via magnetic tape. Validity and consistency checks will be performed on internal data before their input to CRIS. IRS also plans to validate data from external sources. As planned, most of the information in the CRIS system is to be updated once a year, although some data may need to be updated as often as every 3 months. Data from external sources are to be updated on an as-needed or as-available basis. Samples are to represent taxpayers from the current year and 2 previous years. To provide the data needed for specialized market segmentation, the CRIS system is to comprise 10 databases. IRS has come up with the following 10 database models. (1) Form 1040 Individual/Family Filers (income tax filers using forms 1040, 1040A, and 1040EZ) (2) Corporations (3) Sub-Chapter S Corporations (corporations that file under the chapter S provision distribute corporate income and losses to their shareholders) (4) Partnerships (5) 94X Employers (Employers filing Forms 940, 941, 943, etc.) (6) Fiduciary (7) Individual Non-filer Case Leads (operational data) (8) Industries (9) Collection Research File (operational data) (10) Audit Information Management System (operational data) The only database that is currently being developed is the Form 1040 Individual/Family Filers Database. It consists of a stratified random sample of the universe of individual taxpayer accounts for a specific tax period. The database includes general entity information and account information on the current and 2 prior years’ returns, as well as tax return line items for the current and 2 prior years. Related data include information return documents and, for Schedule C and F filers, data extracted from the business master and returns transaction files, the payer master file, the employee plans master file, and various other internal sources. This appendix combines the results of five data collection instruments used to conduct structured interviews with District Directors; Chiefs of DORA, Examination, Collection, and Taxpayer Service; and DORA staff. In total, we interviewed 293 officials from April to December 1995. Some percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. This appendix contains the results from our District Offices of Research and Analysis (DORA) staffing data collection instrument that was provided to all 31 DORA Chiefs for completion during the summer of 1995. The Chiefs reported 217 staff onboard during our field visits. The average and median number of staff per site was 7, and staffing ranged from 4 to 12 people per site. The following tables provide more details about the DORA staff. Some percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. Computer Research Analyst and related computer positions Not applicable. Susan Malone, 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 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 reviewed the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) tax compliance research program, focusing on: (1) the success IRS has had with its new research approach; and (2) IRS ability to implement lessons learned from its Compliance 2000 initiative. GAO found that: (1) IRS implemented its new compliance research approach to address concerns over taxpayer noncompliance and the large gap between income taxes owed and taxes paid; (2) IRS attempted to address these concerns through Compliance 2000, but had limited success due to inadequate compliance data; (3) IRS could avoid these mistakes by establishing more support for its research, using objective compliance data, acquiring more specialized staff, developing an organizational infrastructure, and setting objective measurements; (4) IRS officials believe that this new research approach is more cost-effective, but they doubt that they will reach 90-percent compliance by 2001; (5) IRS officials are concerned that district offices will spend 85 percent of their resources on national compliance issues rather than on district-level issues; (6) IRS has made some progress in developing the Compliance Research Information System (CRIS), but it is unsure when it will become available; (7) IRS officials believe that more training is needed in specialized areas to achieve research objectives; and (8) IRS is in the process of developing tools that track and measure the success of its research projects. |
On May 8, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1406 , the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. If enacted, the bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to allow private sector employers to provide paid leave in the future ( compensatory time or comp time ) in lieu of overtime pay when the overtime is worked. Under H.R. 1406 , compensatory time would be available only when an employer and employee (or representative of the employee) agree to replace overtime wages with paid time off. Compensatory time would be accrued at a rate of not less than one and one-half hours of comp time for each hour of employment for which overtime pay is required. In October 2013, a Senate version of the Working Families Flexibility Act ( S. 1623 ) was introduced. The bill's language was identical to the House-passed version of H.R. 1406 . S. 1623 was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions but, as of this writing, has seen no further action. This report begins with a brief overview of the weekly hours and overtime provisions of the FLSA. It then describes the existing comp time provisions that cover public sector employees. The report then discusses the changes proposed by H.R. 1406 . Initially enacted in 1938, the FLSA regulates weekly hours of work and overtime wages. The act covers most, but not all, private and public sector employees. Exemptions are discussed briefly later in this report. The hours of work regulations discussed in this section are national minimums. The FLSA allows states to enact shorter maximum work hours. Section 7 of the FLSA (29 U.S.C. §207) specifies that employers must pay covered workers at least one and one-half times their regular hourly wage for hours worked in excess of 40 in a single work week. This "time and a half" wage is often referred to as overtime pay. A work week is characterized as a fixed and regularly recurring period of 168 hours (seven 24-hour periods). Work weeks are determined by the employer and may begin on any day and hour. Exceeding 40 hours in a work week is the only scheduling circumstance that entitles a private sector worker to overtime wages. An employer may schedule hours of work in any combination of hours under 40 for a work week (e.g., three 12-hour days) and not be required to pay overtime wages. If an employer does pay overtime wages, there is no maximum number of hours of work for an employee age 16 or over. Section 13 of the FLSA (29 U.S.C. §213) exempts certain workers from the overtime provisions of the act. The largest group of workers who are exempt are bona fide executive, administrative, and professional employees (the "EAP exemption"). Regulations specify that workers under the EAP exemption must be paid a salary of at least $455 per week and meet certain job duty requirements. The FLSA allows nonexempt state and local government employees to receive comp time in lieu of overtime pay. Under a separate law, both exempt and nonexempt federal employees may receive comp time. When it was enacted in 1938, the FLSA covered private sector employees only. In 1966, FLSA coverage was extended to state and local government employees of hospitals, elementary and secondary schools, institutions of higher education, and local transit systems. In 1974, coverage was extended to most federal, state, and local government employees . A 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision ( National League of Cities v. Usery ) held that the 1966 and 1974 amendments to the FLSA that extended coverage to state and local governments were unconstitutional. In February1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ( Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority ) overturned the 1976 decision. After the 1985 Supreme Court ruling, the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1985 ( P.L. 99-150 ) delayed, until April 15, 1986, the requirement that state and local governments pay nonexempt employees time-and-a-half for overtime. The act also allowed employees of state and local governments to receive comp time at a rate of at least one-and-a-half hours for each hour of overtime worked. According to House and Senate committee reports on the 1985 amendments, the purpose of delaying the implementation of time-and-a-half for overtime was to allow state and local governments time to adjust to the new standard. The committee reports also noted that, at the time, many state and local governments had comp time arrangements with their employees. These arrangements were often the result of collective bargaining agreements. Thus, a reason for the comp time provision was to accommodate current practices. Federal employees may receive overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours in a week or 8 hours in a day. Both FLSA exempt and nonexempt employees are eligible for overtime pay. Federal employees may request comp time in lieu of overtime pay. However, an agency head may direct an employee whose pay is greater than the maximum pay for a General Schedule (GS) pay grade 10 employee to take comp time instead of receiving overtime pay when overtime is worked. Federal employees are granted one hour of comp time for each hour of overtime worked. An employee must use accrued comp time by the end of the 26 th pay period after the pay period during which it was earned. At their discretion, federal agencies may pay employees for unused comp time at the employees' overtime rate of pay. For nonexempt employees, comp time is paid at one-and-a-half times an employee's hourly rate of pay. For exempt employees, if an employee's pay is less than the minimum pay of a GS-10 employee, comp time is paid at one-and-a-half times the employee's hourly rate of pay. If an employee's pay is more than the minimum pay of a GS-10 employee, comp time is paid at the greater of one-and-a-half times the minimum hourly pay of a GS-10 employee or the employee's actual hourly rate of pay. The 113 th Congress marks the third time since 1996 that the House has passed a bill to expand comp time to the private sector. In the 104 th Congress, the House passed H.R. 2391 and in the 105 th Congress, the House passed H.R. 1 . While some details varied, these bills were largely similar to H.R. 1406 in the 113 th Congress. H.R. 1406 would amend the FLSA to permit an employee to receive "in lieu of monetary overtime compensation, compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required[.]" Under the act, an employee would be eligible to accrue a maximum of 160 hours of comp time. Under H.R. 1406 , the use of comp time in lieu of overtime wages would be optional for both the employer and employee. If an employer declines to offer comp time, the changes to the FLSA would have no effect and employees would continue to be eligible for overtime wages. If an employer does choose to offer comp time, eligible employees may accept comp time through a written agreement or decline comp time and continue to be eligible for overtime wages. In cases where employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the employee representative may choose to accept or decline comp time. The bill would limit eligibility for comp time to employees who have worked at least 1,000 hours for the employer during the prior 12-month period. H.R. 1406 would allow employees to withdraw from a comp time agreement and return to overtime wages at any time. Employees who withdraw from a comp time agreement may also request to have any unused comp time converted to a cash payment. Employers would be required to comply with this request within 30 days. Employers would be permitted to discontinue offering comp time with 30 days' notice, absent a collective bargaining agreement providing otherwise. The legislation states that employers shall not "directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce" any employee in relation to the employee's choice to accept, forego, or use compensatory time. An employer that violates these provisions "shall be liable to the employee affected in the amount of the rate of compensation ... for each hour of compensatory time accrued by the employee and in an additional amount of such rate of compensation for each hour of compensatory time used by such employee." H.R. 1406 specifies that an employee who has accrued comp time shall be permitted to use it "within a reasonable period after making the request" if the request "does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer." This language is similar to the provisions in current law regulating the use of comp time by state and local government employees. Comp time may be used as paid time off in place of regular work hours. H.R. 1406 , however, also specifies several circumstances in which unused comp time would be converted into a cash payment. No later than January 31 of each year, an employer must provide monetary compensation for any unused comp time accrued during the preceding calendar year. An employer may designate another fixed 12-month period as the work year, though payment for unused comp time must be provided no later than 31 days after the end of the specified work year. An employee may request unused comp time to be converted to monetary payment at any time. The employer must comply with this request within 30 days. An employer, with 30 days' notice, may convert any accrued comp time in excess of 80 hours to a monetary payment. If employment is terminated, either voluntarily or involuntarily, unused comp time must be converted to a monetary payment. Under H.R. 1406 , if compensation is paid for accrued comp time, it would be paid at the higher rate of (1) the employee's regular rate of pay when it is earned or (2) the employee's final rate of pay. The act specifies that any payment owed to an employee for unused comp time would be considered unpaid overtime compensation. H.R. 1406 would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to submit reports to Congress, beginning two years after the date of enactment and each of the three years thereafter. The reports would provide data on the extent to which the comp time provisions are utilized as well as the number of complaints, enforcement actions, and remedies related to comp time. Under H.R. 1406 , the changes to the FLSA made would expire five years after enactment. | On May 8, 2013, the House passed H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. If enacted, this bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to allow private sector employers to provide future paid leave (compensatory time or comp time) in lieu of overtime wages. Under current law, the FLSA requires employers to pay covered, nonexempt employees one and one-half times their regular hourly wage ("time and a half") for any hours worked in excess of 40 in a single work week. If enacted, H.R. 1406 would give employers and employees the option to agree to replace overtime wages with one and one-half hours of paid time off for each hour of overtime worked. H.R. 1406 would not affect workers who are not presently covered by, or are exempt from, the overtime provisions of the FLSA such as many executive, administrative, and professional employees. Under H.R. 1406, the replacement of overtime wages with comp time would be optional for both employers and employees. If an employer and an employee (or the representative of the employee) enter into a comp time agreement, either party may terminate the agreement. If such an agreement is terminated, any unused comp time would be converted to a cash payment to the employee. Under a comp time agreement, employees would be permitted to accrue up to 160 hours of comp time. Once a year, employers would be required to convert all unused comp time to a monetary payment. Accrued comp time would also be converted to a monetary payment upon the voluntary or involuntary termination of an employee. If enacted, the comp time provisions of H.R. 1406 would expire five years after enactment. In October 2013, a Senate version of the Working Families Flexibility Act (S. 1623) was introduced. The bill's language was identical to the House-passed version of H.R. 1406. S. 1623 was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions but, as of this writing, has seen no further action. |
These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| Thomas Hardiman. AP Photo/Cliff Owen President Donald Trump announced Monday morning that he had settled on a nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court — and one formerly dark-horse candidate has emerged as the judge with quite possibly the inside track to score the nod.
Thomas Hardiman, a 51-year-old judge who sits on the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, has caught the attention of observers to fill the void left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia for several reasons.
With Democrats threatening to block Trump's Supreme Court pick, it's noteworthy that Hardiman was voted onto the appeals court in 2007 by a 95-0 tally. Both Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, voted to approve him.
Hardiman also has the backing of Trump's closest judicial source: his sister.
Maryanne Trump Barry, a fellow 3rd Circuit judge, holds a high opinion of Hardiman. As an adviser who spoke with the president told Politico, "Maryanne is high on Hardiman."
And those who know the conservative judge say there's another trait that could be attractive to Trump.
"I don't know that I can think of anybody that seemed as down-to-earth as he is," Carter Phillips, a Washington, DC, lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court more than any other attorney in private practice, told Business Insider.
Phillips said he has argued a pair of cases in front of Hardiman, been a part of a few panels with the Pittsburgh-based judge, and had a handful of Hardiman's former clerks work at his law firm, Sidley Austin.
"He's a really nice person," Phillips said. "I think he will be what you see is what you get on the bench. I don't think you're going to see anything quite like Justice Scalia in that regard — I don't expect him to be larger than life. ... He appears, by all means, to be a solid conservative."
Hardiman, at 37, was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve on the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. He was nominated to the appeals court four years later.
A Notre Dame graduate who received his law degree from Georgetown, Hardiman would find himself in sparse company on the Supreme Court bench — each justice currently seated holds an Ivy League law degree.
As SCOTUSblog noted, Hardiman has reflected originalist opinions on Second Amendment cases. On abortion-related issues, Hardiman has not weighed in directly.
AP Photo/Cliff Owen
Trump promised throughout the campaign to fill the vacancy with a judge in the mold of Scalia. Those who spoke with Business Insider about Hardiman said he would likely fall somewhere between Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts ideologically.
Former US District Judge Robert Cindrich, who hired Hardiman to join his Pittsburgh firm when Hardiman moved to the city, said he "tries to be humanistic" and "tries to solve problems" in a way similar to Roberts.
"That might be somewhere where he might fit," Cindrich told Business Insider. "For sure he's a conservative. In his philosophies, he is a Republican, There's no question about his conservative bona fides. He was active in the Republican Party when he came to Pittsburgh — very successful at that, by the way — so you would have to say he'd be of the conservative mold. How far, it's very hard for me to say.
"Whether he is as strict an originalist as Justice Scalia, I can't say," he said. "But whether he would pay heed to the word of the Constitution, I know he will. There's no question."
But Cindrich, a Democrat, also said he considered Hardiman to be "sufficiently forward-thinking and thoughtful."
Echoing Phillips' assessment, Cindrich said Hardiman is the consummate "people person."
"[It's] one of the reasons he was so successful as a district judge," Cindrich said. "He wasn't there very long. They picked him out as a star, which he was, and got him to [that] circuit court appointment."
Phillips said Hardiman's clerks say they "love him."
"But they also say he's open-minded, likes to talk through the issues, stays engaged with them after they complete their clerkship," he said. "From my perspective, he'll likely be pro-business, and he'll be a lot like Justice Scalia in terms of his overall approach to the cases. I think he'll probably be good for most of my clients."
Like Cindrich, Phillips said he expects Hardiman would fall somewhere between Alito and Roberts ideologically and that he would be surprised if the judge ended up closer to the more moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"At least based on everything I've read on him — which I won't say is that much, I won't start reading a judge's opinions until I have a nominee in hand — everything I've heard about him and read about him suggests he will be a solid conservative," Phillips said. "The same way I knew that Merrick Garland was going to be a solid liberal if his nomination hadn't stalled."
Phillips said it was "probably not an unfair comparison" to make that Hardiman would be for the right what Garland, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals judge who was nominated early last year by President Barack Obama for Scalia's vacancy, was for the left.
Hardiman is joined on the Trump administration's list of finalists by 10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch and 11th Circuit Judge Bill Pryor. Trump initially said he would announce the nomination on Thursday, but after a weekend firestorm surrounding his executive order that temporarily bars people immigrating to the US from seven Muslim-majority countries, the announcement was moved up to Tuesday night.
Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network, a group that plans to go to bat for Trump's eventual nominee and spend millions to help get that person confirmed, told Business Insider that it seems as if there is a new front-runner for the vacancy with each passing day.
"You know, yesterday was Gorsuch's day. Today is Hardiman. Tomorrow, we'll probably be on [7th Circuit Judge] Diane Sykes," she said.
She insisted that Hardiman would be an "excellent choice" for the vacancy and would fulfill Trump's promise of picking a judge akin to Scalia. But Severino added that she feels "like an Ivy League admissions office" with what she believes are a litany of great conservative choices being reported as under consideration.
"You've got all these people with 4.0s and 1600 SAT scores," Severino said. "You can kind of pick which flavor, and they'd all be great choices. That, I think, is the president's task, but it's a great problem to have." ||||| Over the weekend, reports indicated that President Donald Trump’s shortlist for a nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia nearly a year ago has apparently gotten even shorter, with Jan Crawford of CBS News reporting that the list had been narrowed to Judge William Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Judge Neil Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and Judge Thomas Hardiman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. In some ways, the 51-year-old Hardiman has more in common with Justice Sonia Sotomayor – whom he would sit next to if nominated and confirmed to the court – than with Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he would replace: The Massachusetts-born Hardiman became the first person in his family to go to college when he went to the University of Notre Dame, and he financed his law degree at the Georgetown University Law Center by driving a taxi. (If nominated and confirmed, Hardiman would also bring educational diversity to a court on which all of the other justices attended Ivy League law schools.)
After his law school graduation, Hardiman worked for two years in the Washington office of Skadden Arps before moving to Pittsburgh, where he practiced law until 2003. At the age of 37, Hardiman became a federal district judge; he was appointed to the 3rd Circuit in 2007, at the age of 41 – yet another similarity with Sotomayor, who also became a district judge at the age of 37 and took her seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit at the age of 44. But the comparisons with Sotomayor largely end there. Hardiman is a solid, although hardly knee-jerk, conservative who was active in Republican politics before joining the federal bench, and his jurisprudence as a Supreme Court justice likely would be closer to another justice who hails from the 3rd Circuit: Justice Samuel Alito.
During his nearly ten years as a federal appeals court judge, Hardiman has weighed in on a variety of hot-button topics important to Republicans, and his votes in these cases have consistently been conservative. For example, the gun rights cases in which Hardiman has participated reflect an originalist approach to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Although he rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the general constitutionality of the federal law barring felons from possessing firearms, last year he concurred in a pair of challenges to the law by two men who had been convicted of corruption of a minor and carrying a handgun without a license, respectively. Hardiman agreed with the would-be gun owners that, at least as applied to them, the federal law violates the Constitution. He explained that “the threshold question in a Second Amendment challenge is one of scope: whether the Second Amendment protects the person, the weapon, or the activity in the first place. This,” he continued, “requires an inquiry into ‘text and history.’” Based on that inquiry, he concluded that “the most cogent principle that can be drawn from traditional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms is that dangerous persons likely to use firearms for illicit purposes were not understood to be protected by the Second Amendment” – a category into which the individuals in this case, in his view, did not fall. Relying on this principle, Hardiman also joined an unpublished and unsigned opinion rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to the federal and state bars on gun ownership by an inmate released from prison after serving time for armed robbery.
Hardiman’s opinion in Drake v. Filko is a strong statement of his commitment to a more expansive view of the Second Amendment. The case was a challenge to a New Jersey law regulating the issuance of permits to carry handguns in public. Among other things, the gun owner seeking a permit is required to show that he has a “justifiable need” to carry the gun. The panel ruled in favor of the state, but Hardiman dissented from that ruling. He emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago both “indicate that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home,” and that – at least in his view – the law violates the Second Amendment. After considering the case at three different conferences, the Supreme Court declined to review the case on the merits, as it did with several other cases presenting the same question.
On the death penalty, Hardiman has generally – but not always – voted in favor of the state and against the inmate. Many of the death penalty cases in which he has participated involve applications of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a 1996 federal law that imposes both procedural and substantive limitations on an inmate’s ability to obtain habeas corpus relief from his conviction. In particular, Hardiman has emphasized that AEDPA imposes a high bar that inmates will rarely be able to overcome. Thus, in one case he dissented from the en banc court’s decision on a death-row inmate’s claims that the prosecution did not comply with its duty to disclose exculpatory evidence. Even if there are “gaps or errors” in a state court’s reasoning, he stressed, federal courts should still uphold it on habeas review unless the decision itself is unreasonable.
In another death penalty case, Hardiman first joined a decision in favor of the inmate, but that decision was vacated by the Supreme Court. On remand, the panel ruled for the inmate again, in a decision authored (like the original opinion) by Judge Maryanne Trump Barry – the president’s sister. Hardiman dissented from the ruling on remand, explaining that the inmate could not “surmount AEDPA’s formidable bar to habeas relief. “Although I agree with my colleagues that the best reading of the” police report in the case on which the inmate relied “is that it is not ambiguous or speculative,” he acknowledged, “I cannot say that the state court’s ruling was unreasonable under the highly deferential AEDPA standard.”
Hardiman also joined an opinion that upheld Delaware’s lethal injection protocol. However, the decision was hardly a ringing endorsement of Delaware’s practices: The panel also cautioned that its ruling “should in no way be construed as license for Delaware to stay the worrisome course it appears to have taken at times under its former protocol.” And it added that the “record before us reflects an occasional blitheness on Delaware’s part that, while perhaps not unconstitutional, gives us great pause.”
Hardiman has not weighed in directly on issues relating to abortion. In United States v. Marcavage, though, he joined an opinion vacating the conviction of an anti-abortion protester who was arrested for refusing to move away from the sidewalk in front of the Liberty Bell Center in Philadelphia. The court agreed with the protester that the sidewalk is a public forum, subjecting the government’s efforts to restrict his speech to a more exacting standard of review. The panel declined to defer to the trial court’s finding that the content of Marcavage’s message played no role in his removal from the sidewalk.
Hardiman was less sympathetic to other free speech claims. In Easton Area School District v. B.H., he dissented from a ruling in favor of students who wanted to be able to wear silicone bracelets with the slogan “I [Heart] Boobies” as part of a breast-cancer awareness campaign. Hardiman argued that the decision was “inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence.” Describing the case as a “close” one, he contended that the bracelets “would seem to fall into a gray area between speech that is plainly lewd and merely indecorous.” But he deemed it “objectively reasonable to interpret the bracelets, in the middle school context, as inappropriate sexual innuendo and double entendre.” A contrary ruling, he cautioned, would require schools “to permit more egregiously sexual advocacy messages.” The Supreme Court denied the school district’s petition for review without comment, indicating that there were not four votes to review the case on the merits, but not necessarily endorsing the decision of the lower court.
And in NAACP v. City of Philadelphia, Hardiman dissented from a panel opinion holding that the city’s ban on non-commercial advertisements by private advertisers at the city’s airport violated the First Amendment. Hardiman characterized the ban as “a reasonable attempt to avoid controversy at the airport” and thereby “create a comfortable environment” there.
Hardiman’s lone campaign finance opinion suggests that he would vote to relax restrictions on campaign donations, although in the specific case before the 3rd Circuit his views worked for the benefit of police unions. He wrote for the court in striking down a provision in Philadelphia’s charter that barred police officers from making contributions to their union’s political action committee. He acknowledged the city’s “historic struggles with police and political corruption,” but he concluded that the city had not shown how the ban “serves in a direct and material way to address these harms.” He seemed to find particularly troubling the city’s claim that “the ban is part and parcel of a larger scheme that insulates police officers from all politics, while simultaneously condoning political activities by the police that have similar, if not more pernicious, implications.”
Many of the religion cases in which Hardiman has been involved have been lawsuits filed by inmates who contend that their ability to exercise their religion has been restricted by prison officials. In those cases, Hardiman generally ruled in favor of the prison officials, but in other cases he has written opinions supporting a student’s ability to express religious beliefs in the public schools. Thus, he dissented from the panel’s ruling in favor of a school district and against a mother and her son, both of whom described themselves as evangelical Christians, who were barred from reading from the Bible during a kindergarten “show and tell” activity. Hardiman suggested that “the school went too far in this case in limiting participation in ‘All About Me’ week to nonreligious perspectives,” which “plainly constituted” discrimination based on the family’s viewpoint. And Hardiman questioned the 3rd Circuit’s test for reviewing the propriety of student speech in elementary school, criticizing the factors used in that test as “highly manipulable.” “The majority’s desire to protect young children from potentially influential speech in the classroom is understandable,” he concluded, but that desire, “however admirable, does not allow the government to offer a student and his parents the opportunity to express something about themselves, except what is most important to them.” And in another case, he joined a decision against a school district and in favor of a child who was barred from distributing at school invitations to a Christmas party to be held at her church.
In other cases, Hardiman has been harder to pigeonhole. He wrote for the court in allowing a gender-stereotyping claim by a gay man who described himself as “effeminate” to go forward, reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the company where the man worked, and which ultimately fired him. Hardiman explained that the plaintiff was “harassed because he did not conform to” the company’s “vision of how a man should look, speak, and act – rather than harassment based solely on his sexual orientation.” Hardiman agreed with the company that “every case of sexual orientation discrimination cannot translate into a triable case of gender stereotyping discrimination.” But at the same time, he observed, the company “cannot persuasively argue that because Prowel is homosexual, he is precluded from bringing a gender stereotyping claim.”
Hardiman’s opinion for the court in a challenge to a fire department’s residency requirement similarly reaches a more liberal result. The court affirmed the district court’s ruling that the residency requirement had a disparate impact on African-American firefighters, rejecting the argument that the fire department “will be forced to open to hiring to non-residents while other municipalities exclude” its own residents. Hardiman explained that “we have no authority to endorse discrimination against firefighter candidates who do not live in North Hudson in order to protect those who do.”
In immigration cases, Hardiman has generally affirmed – in fairly unremarkable unpublished opinions – decisions going against noncitizens. But he has not hesitated to vacate decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals when he believes that the board has erred. In Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney General, for example, Hardiman was part of a panel that ruled in favor of an asylum applicant, who alleged that he had come to the United States to avoid being involuntarily recruited into a violent gang in his home country of Honduras. The case centered on whether the applicant was being persecuted because of his “membership in a particular social group” within the meaning of federal immigration laws. The panel sent the case back to the BIA, reasoning that two requirements – “social visibility” and “particularity” – imposed by the BIA on asylum-seekers were inconsistent with the board’s earlier decisions. Hardiman concurred in the judgment for the asylum-seeker. He would have held that the BIA can interpret the term “particular social group” “to include whatever requirements it sees fit.” But, he cautioned, the BIA must also acknowledge that the requirements are a departure from its previous position and explain why it is making the change. Here, he observed, “[a]nnouncing a new interpretation while at the same time reaffirming seemingly irreconcilable precedents suggests that the BIA does not recognize or is not being forthright about, the nature of the change its new interpretation effectuates. It also unfairly forces asylum applicants to shoot at a moving target.” And in Di Li Li v. Attorney General, Hardiman joined an opinion that remanded the case to the BIA for reconsideration of a motion to reopen based on changed circumstances when the asylum applicant had become Christian and the BIA had not addressed his argument “as to how conditions have worsened over time” for Christians in China.
Several of the decisions in which Hardiman has participated have made their way to the Supreme Court on the merits. In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, Hardiman wrote for a divided panel in a challenge to a New Jersey jail’s policy of strip-searching arrestees before they join the facility’s general population. The majority reversed the district court’s ruling in favor of the arrestee. Hardiman concluded that, “balancing the Jails’ security interests at the time of intake before arrestees enter the general population against the privacy interests of the inmates,” the strip-search procedures are “reasonable.” By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling.
Hardiman also joined another high-profile decision that was ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court: an en banc ruling striking down a federal law that criminalized depictions of animal cruelty in videos. The challenge to the law came from a Virginia man convicted of making and selling dog-fighting videos; he argued that the law violated the First Amendment, and both the 3rd Circuit and the Supreme Court (the latter by a vote of 8-1) agreed.
Yet another decision in which Hardiman participated will be before the court on the merits soon: In December 2016, the justices announced that they would review a trio of cases involving the interpretation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which generally applies to employers that offer pensions and other benefits to their employees, but does not apply to church plans. The question before the Supreme Court is whether that exemption applies to pension plans maintained by employers – such as non-profit religious hospitals, schools, and homes for the elderly – that are affiliated with a church, or whether the exemption instead applies only to plans that were originally established by a church. Hardiman was part of a 3rd Circuit panel that ruled that “only a church can establish a plan that qualifies for an exemption” under ERISA; now the justices will decide whether that conclusion is correct.
Hardiman’s wife Lori, with whom he has three children, is from a well-connected Democratic family in Pennsylvania, but Hardiman registered to vote as a Republican in 1994. Hardiman has headed the local Big Brothers Big Sisters program, and he has also served as a “Big Brother” himself. A 2003 article in the Pittsburgh City Paper raised questions about Hardiman’s role in defending a challenge to a Ten Commandments plaque on public property, as well as his role in opposing housing discrimination cases. Hardiman is a fluent Spanish speaker who studied in Mexico; while living in Washington he worked with Ayuda, a legal aid clinic representing poor Spanish-speaking immigrants, on (among others) domestic violence and political asylum cases. During his Senate confirmation hearings, he described one of his immigration cases for Ayuda as “one of the most important cases I have ever handled.”
Thanks are due to Andrew Hamm for his significant contributions to the legal research for this post.
[Disclosure: I was among the counsel to petitioner Albert Florence in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders.]
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Potential nominee profile: Thomas Hardiman, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 23, 2017, 4:19 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-thomas-hardiman/ ||||| Update at 12:19 p.m., January 11: This post has been expanded to include discussion of Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama.
Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit is widely considered, along with Judge Diane Sykes, to be the front-runner to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. President-elect Donald Trump mentioned both judges by name during a primary debate shortly after Scalia’s death, and both have the conservative bona fides necessary to allay concerns about, as Pryor himself has put it, adding “more Souters” to the court.
Pryor, 54, earned his B.A. from Northeast Louisiana University in 1984 and his J.D. from Tulane University Law School 1987. Pryor clerked for Judge John Minor Wisdom on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and then worked as a private attorney until 1995. He served for two years as deputy attorney general of Alabama before becoming attorney general in 1997. As attorney general, he became known for his removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore for Moore’s refusal to follow a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state Supreme Court building.
President George W. Bush nominated Pryor to the 11th Circuit in 2003, but the nomination stalled after Senate Democrats criticized Pryor for several incidents. While serving as attorney general, Pryor wrote a brief in defense of the Texas law banning sodomy that was later struck down in Lawrence v. Texas. Additionally, Pryor has called Roe v. Wade the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.” Bush eventually appointed Pryor to the appeals court during a congressional recess in 2004, and he was later confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 53-45.
Criminal Law
Judge Pryor is no friend of criminal defendants. He very consistently sides with the government in criminal cases on issues both big and small. And he has almost never ruled in favor of a capital defendant.
General Criminal Cases. For example, in In re Morgan, Pryor wrote an opinion holding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama – which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits imposing mandatory life sentences without parole on those who were under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes – did not apply retroactively to inmates whose sentences were final before the Supreme Court announced its decision. The Supreme Court subsequently reached the contrary conclusion in Montgomery v. Louisiana, over the dissents of Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas.
In United States v. Jayyousi, Pryor joined a decision that, over Judge Rosemary Barkett’s dissent, upheld the convictions of a number of individuals charged with forming a support cell to provide money, recruits and equipment to overseas terrorist groups, including al-Qaida. Among other things, the panel rejected the defendants’ objections to admission of testimony from an FBI agent who testified that seemingly innocuous statements in intercepted phone calls were actually using code words, and then provided interpretations of what the code words and conversations meant. The panel also reversed the district court’s decision to give one of the defendants a 208-month-below-guidelines sentence.
In United States v. Bautista-Silva, Pryor wrote a majority decision rejecting a Fourth Amendment challenge to a traffic stop leading to an arrest for human trafficking. The court concluded that the veteran border patrol agent “reasonably suspected that a sport-utility-vehicle with California license plates containing six adult males of apparently Hispanic descent was transporting illegal aliens when the driver changed speeds erratically on a slippery road and the passengers appeared nervous and refused to acknowledge the agent’s attempts to gain their attention.” Judge Barkett dissented, concluding that the evidence, “even when viewed together, supports nothing more than impermissible racial profiling that should never be used under our Constitution as an excuse for randomly stopping any of the many Hispanic motorists that travel the highways of Florida in SUV’s.”
Capital Cases. Pryor has participated in many decisions associated with death penalty petitioners (writing 28 reported decisions by our estimation), far too many for us to describe here in any detail. A few statistics, however, are worth noting:
Of the 28 reported decisions Pryor has written on the death penalty, all were resolved in favor of the state (including two vacating district court decisions granting habeas relief).
In at least five cases in which Pryor voted in a capital defendant’s favor: On three occasions, the panel vacated a district court decision denying habeas. These are Thomas v. Att’y Gen., Fla. (remanding for full hearing on equitable tolling); Cooper v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr. (reversing habeas denial on ineffective assistance of counsel claim and granting relief from death sentence); and Zakrzewski v. McDonough (reversing district court judgment that motion for relief from judgment was a second and successive habeas petition). The other two occasions involved either a short per curiam opinion on remand from the Supreme Court, Ford v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., or a panel decision bound by circuit precedent that was unanimously reversed en banc, Zack v. Tucker.
Of Pryor’s 28 reported opinions we identified, 17 were unanimous with no separate opinions. A few, however, did lead to vigorous dissents from Judges Beverly Martin and Charles Wilson. These include Melton v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr. (with dissent by Martin); Henry v. Warden (with dissent by Wilson); Muhammad v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr. (with dissent-in-part by Wilson); Mann v. Palmer (with dissent by Martin); and Ponticelli v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr. (with dissent by Martin). Other Pryor decisions with separate opinions include Howell v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr. (with two concurrences, neither of which disagreed with Pryor’s analysis); Reese v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr. (with one concurrence by Martin disagreeing with majority’s decision to perform de novo review of merits after finding petition did not meet requirements of AEDPA); and McClain v. Hall (with one concurrence that did not disagree with Pryor’s analysis).
The Supreme Court has never reviewed any of the capital decisions Pryor wrote himself (although a cert petition in one case, discussed below, is currently pending). Of the other opinions Pryor joined, at least two were reversed by the Supreme Court — Porter v. Att’y Gen., reversed under the name of Porter v. McCollum, and Holland v. Florida. Both are discussed below.
Pryor has written two en banc decisions in capital cases. These are Evans v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., in which Pryor, writing for eight judges, over two dissents, affirmed the district court’s conclusion that there was no Strickland violation due to counsel’s decision not to present mitigating evidence that would have been more harmful than helpful, and Wilson v. Warden, which is discussed below.
The vast majority of Pryor’s death penalty cases involved federal habeas review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Those opinions have touched on a range of issues, including ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel (Morton v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr.; Darling v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr.; McClaim v. Hall; and Diaz v. Sec’y for the Dep’t of Corr.); Brady challenges (Sochor v. Sec’y Dep’t of Corr.); Batson challenges (Greene v. Upton); ex post facto clause challenges ( Trotter v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr.); and procedural defaults (Muhammad v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr. and Crowe v. Hall). One hallmark of these decisions has been Pryor’s willingness to describe the intricate and often gory details of the crimes themselves, even if not directly relevant to the appeal. Examples of this practice include Greene v. Upton; Doorbal v. Dep’t of Corr.; and Trotter v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr.
Pryor’s most controversial death penalty decision was probably Wilson v. Warden. Writing for the panel, Pryor explained that a state supreme court’s summary denial of a certificate of probable cause to appeal was an adjudication on the merits, such that the federal habeas court should not “look through” that summary denial to the underlying lower court merits decision. The 11th Circuit voted to vacate that decision and rehear the case en banc. En banc, however, in Wilson v. Warden, Pryor wrote for the court, over the dissent of five judges, affirming the approach set forth in his panel decision. A petition for certiorari remains pending.
As noted earlier, the Supreme Court has reversed two cases in which Pryor joined the majority decision in favor of the state. In Porter v. McCollum, the district court granted habeas after finding that Porter’s penalty-phase counsel was ineffective for failing to perform an adequate investigation of mitigating evidence, and that this deficient performance was prejudicial. The 11th Circuit reversed, finding that the district court failed to defer to the state court’s factual findings regarding Porter’s prior alcohol abuse and mental health, and concluding that it was not unreasonable for the state court to discount all of the categories of mental health evidence. The Supreme Court reversed. First, the court concluded that Porter’s counsel was clearly deficient because he failed to perform almost any investigation into Porter’s background for mitigating evidence. Further, the court found that the Florida Supreme Court unreasonably applied Strickland in holding that the deficiency was not prejudicial. The court explained that, due to this deficiency, the judge and jury heard essentially no evidence that would humanize Porter or allow the judge or jury to assess his moral culpability. Thus, the court found the failure to investigate his background clearly prejudicial.
In Holland v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations for filing a federal petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under AEDPA is subject to equitable tolling. The 11th Circuit had agreed that equitable tolling could apply, but only in situations involving bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment or the like, and that negligent attorney misconduct was insufficient. The Supreme Court reversed, finding the 11th Circuit’s test too rigid, and holding that a more flexible equitable test was necessary for determining if tolling was appropriate. The court then remanded for further proceedings to determine whether tolling would be appropriate for Holland’s petition.
Finally, Pryor has written decisions on three occasions denying stays of execution on the eve of an execution. In Mann v. Palmer, over a dissent by Judge Martin, the panel upheld the district court’s denial of a stay in light of a challenge to Florida’s substitution of two drugs in its three-drug execution cocktail. The opinion rested on both res judicata and statute of limitations grounds, but nevertheless went on to explain that the majority would have, under de novo review, found no Eighth Amendment violation. In Muhammad v. Secretary, Florida. Department of Corrections, Pryor wrote a short opinion for the panel finding that res judicata barred petitioner’s claim that Florida’s use of midazolam in its execution cocktail violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Finally, in Crowe v. Donald, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a stay of execution on the ground that the section 1983 complaint was untimely. Thus, in all three opinions reviewing a stay of execution, Pryor upheld the denial of the stay on procedural grounds.
Immigration
Pryor also generally votes in the government’s favor in immigration cases, but with regular and notable exceptions. He has voted both for (Ayala v. U.S. Att’y. Gen.) and against (Malu v. U.S. Att’y. Gen.) asylum-seekers alleging fear of persecution based on sexual orientation. He has repeatedly voted in favor of immigrants seeking asylum based on fears of religious persecution. Examples include Mezvrishvili v. U.S. Att’y. Gen. (Jehovah’s Witness from Republic of Georgia); Mingkid v. U.S. Att’y. Gen. (Indonesian Christians); Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y. Gen. (Christian from Iran); as well as Tan v. U.S. Atty. Gen. (vacating denial of asylum to Indonesian of Chinese descent, alleging racial persecution). Pryor has also voted for and against asylum-seekers asserting abortion-related grounds for persecution at home in, for example, Jiang v. U.S. Att’y. Gen. (Chinese applicant entitled to reopen case to present new evidence of forced sterilization in China); Li v. U.S. Att’y. Gen.(same); Yu v. U.S. Att’y. Gen. (spouse failed to prove persecution based on wife’s forced sterilization); and Lin v. U.S. Att’y. Gen. (same for boyfriend).
Civil Rights
Unlike his record in criminal cases, Judge Pryor’s record in civil rights cases is less susceptible to generalization. Pryor has been a strong proponent of religious freedom, has been perhaps surprisingly receptive to claims of discrimination by LGBTQ plaintiffs, and has voted to reject voting rights challenges in the small number of such cases he has confronted.
Religion. Pryor has consistently – although not uniformly – ruled in favor of parties raising religious liberty claims. For example, the day after the Supreme Court released its decision regarding the Obamacare birth control mandate, an 11th Circuit panel issued an order enjoining enforcement of the mandate pending appeal in a related case, but expressly stating that the order did not prejudge the merits of the appeal. Pryor, however, issued a lengthy concurrence in Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. (almost certainly written long before the Supreme Court decision came down), explaining why he believed that the plaintiff would prevail in demonstrating that the mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In particular, he concluded that the plaintiff’s exercise of religion was substantially burdened by the requirement that it fill out a form in order to opt out of the contraceptive mandate, and he characterized the government’s opposition as impermissibly second-guessing the content of the plaintiff’s religious beliefs.
Pryor also joined an opinion in Covenant Christian Ministries, Inc. v. City of Marietta, Ga., finding a municipal zoning ordinance violated RLUIPA by discriminating against churches in permitting a variety of uses in residential zones (such as private parks and playgrounds) but not the building of churches. But the court held that the violation should not have been remedied by allowing the church to build in the zone; instead, it held that the district court should have struck down the ordinance allowing other non-residential uses in residential zones.
In Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Ga., Pryor wrote a lengthy opinion upholding a county’s practice of opening its meetings with a prayer, even though the prayers frequently included sectarian (overwhelmingly Christian) references. Over a dissent, Pryor concluded that the establishment clause permits legislative prayers that include sectarian references so long as the prayer is not exploited to advance or disparage particular religions. At the same time, however, the court found that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the county violated the establishment clause during a certain period by categorically excluding clergy of certain faiths from giving the prayer.
In Selman v. Cobb County School District, Pryor and two of his colleagues heard an appeal from a decision striking down a school board’s decision to include a sticker in biology textbooks stressing that evolution is “a theory, not a fact” and urging that the issue be “approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” The district court had ruled the sticker violated the establishment clause, but the panel concluded that the case record was too much of a mess to permit appellate review (It was missing, for example, evidence referred to in the district court opinion.). The case was remanded with instruction to clean up the record and address a number of factual issues regarding the context in which the sticker was proposed and adopted by the school board.
Pryor has written opinions coming out both ways in cases alleging infringement of prison inmates’ religious rights. In United States v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, for example, he ruled in favor of the federal government in a civil rights suit brought on behalf of inmates whose religions required kosher meals, rejecting the state’s arguments that it cost too much. But in Lake v. Skelton, Pryor wrote that sheriffs in Georgia (who run county jails) are entitled to sovereign immunity as arms of the state and therefore are immune from private damages suits (in this case, alleging violations of RLUIPA and the First Amendment for failure to provide religiously required vegetarian meals).
Pryor also voted against religious freedom claims in an employment case, Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., finding that the employer adequately accommodated an employee’s religious objection to working on Fridays.
LGBTQ Rights. In the context of LGBTQ rights, Pryor’s most significant decision is probably one that he did not write, but simply joined. In Glenn v. Brumby, Pryor joined an opinion written by Judge Barkett (one of the 11th Circuit’s most liberal judges) holding that Georgia officials violated the equal protection clause when they fired an employee for being transgender. The plaintiff was born a biological male and was hired by the Georgia General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Counsel as an editor. While working there, the plaintiff began to transition from male to female. When she informed her supervisor that she would begin coming to work as a woman, she was fired. Her supervisor stated that the “intended gender transition was inappropriate, that it would be disruptive, that some people would view it as a moral issue, and that it would make [her] coworkers uncomfortable.” The district court granted summary judgment in the plaintiff’s favor on the equal protection claim and the 11th Circuit affirmed. First, the court held that discrimination on the basis of transgender status constitutes sex-based discrimination and is therefore subject to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause. The panel relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which held that discrimination on the basis of gender stereotypes is sex-based discrimination. The panel reasoned that discrimination against transsexuals is sex-based discrimination under that rule because a “person is defined as transgender precisely because of the perception that his or her behavior transgresses gender stereotypes.” The panel further held that the only justification proffered for the firing – a concern that “other women might object to [the plaintiff’s] restroom use” – was unsupported by any evidence in the record (The court noted, for example, that the office in which the plaintiff worked had only single-occupancy restrooms.) The court therefore concluded that the employer had “advanced no other reason that could qualify as a governmental purpose, much less an ‘important’ governmental purpose, and even less than that, a ‘sufficiently important governmental purpose’ that was achieved by firing Glenn because of her gender non-conformity.”
In Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, Pryor joined another decision written by Barkett, rejecting a religious freedom claim by a graduate student in a counseling program. During her classes, the student expressed the belief that homosexuality is a disorder and that she intended to attempt to convert students from being homosexual to heterosexual. School officials believed that this approach was contrary to the American Counseling Association’s code of ethics (which the school was required to adopt and teach to retain accreditation) and required the student to undertake a remediation plan before being allowed to participate in one-on-one counseling as part of the school’s clinical practicum. The 11th Circuit rejected the student’s First Amendment claim, concluding that the school was not discriminating against her on the basis of her viewpoint, but rather because she expressed an intent to impose her own personal religious views on her clients, in violation of the code of ethics. The panel also held that because the rule was neutral with respect to religion and generally applicable, it did not violate the establishment clause.
Pryor concurred separately. Among other things, he noted that although the 11th Circuit had held that universities can enforce such codes of ethics with respect to school-sponsored activities (like a clinical practicum), “we have never ruled that a public university can discriminate against student speech based on the concern that the student might, in a variety of other circumstances, express views at odds with the preferred viewpoints of the university.” At the same time, he emphasized that “[a]lthough federal courts owe no deference to universities when considering whether a public university has exceeded constitutional constraints, … we may not act as ‘ersatz deans or educators’ by second-guessing regular academic methods of a public university.”
Pryor also discussed the evolving view of homosexuality in the psychiatric profession and its relationship to the First Amendment:
A few decades ago, the prevailing view of the psychiatric profession maintained that homosexuality was a treatable mental disorder. See American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2d ed. 1968). As this record makes plain, the prevailing view changed. This shift in psychiatric orthodoxy occurred largely because professionals who had been taught that homosexuality was a disease of the mind, but who rejected that view, argued successfully that the psychiatric diagnostic criteria should be amended. See Herb Kutchins & Stuart A. Kirk, Making Us Crazy 55–77 (1997) (describing professional efforts to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM–II). This change in opinion would have taken much longer if public universities had been able to expel students who rejected the prevailing view and intended to argue that homosexuality was not a mental disease. As the First Amendment protected the professionals who successfully advocated against the then-prevailing view of the psychiatric profession, so too does it protect Keeton should she decide to advocate that those professionals got it wrong.
In another First Amendment case touching on LGBTQ issues, Carver Middle School Gay-Straight Alliance, v. School Board Of Lake County, Florida, Pryor wrote a decision reviving a lawsuit by a middle school gay-straight alliance group under the Equal Access Act. Pryor explained that under the EAA, “if a public school ‘provides secondary education as determined by State law,’ the school must give extracurricular clubs equal access to school resources. 20 U.S.C. §§ 4071–72.” A group of Florida middle-school students and a teacher had applied to form a gay-straight alliance student club, but were denied on the ground that the club had no “allowed purpose.” The district court dismissed the suit as both unripe and moot, and held in the alternative that the Act did not apply to the school. In an unpublished decision, Pryor wrote that the controversy was in fact ripe, was not moot, and that the statute applied to the school.
Voting Rights. Pryor has had two voting rights decisions of note. First, in Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, he wrote a decision rejecting a challenge to Georgia’s voter identification statute. He began by characterizing the case as addressing “whether the legitimate interest of the government of safeguarding the exercise of a civil right is outweighed by a corresponding burden of that right.” Pryor and his colleagues concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, which had upheld Indiana’s voter identification law, compelled the same result in the case from Georgia. Pryor specifically rejected the plaintiff’s claim that Georgia was required to substantiate a real risk of voter fraud or prove that the identification requirement was an effective remedy. At the same time, he concluded that the plaintiffs were “unable to direct this Court to any admissible and reliable evidence that quantifies the extent and scope of the burden imposed by the Georgia statute.” Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an injunction.
Pryor’s other main voting rights decision came in Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama, in which he sat on a three-judge panel at the district court level. After the 2000 census, the Alabama state legislature passed new redistricting plans that created twenty-seven (out of 105) house districts and eight (out of 35) senate districts with a majority minority population. In redistricting after the 2010 Census, the legislature set a goal of no more than 2% population deviation between districts (as opposed to 10% for the 2001 redistricting plan) and instructed a consultant to keep the percentage of minorities in each district roughly the same as in the 2001 plan. The legislature largely preserved the same number of majority-minority districts, but the choice of a 2% deviation limit and an instruction to keep the minority percentage roughly the same in these districts led to an expansion of the minority population in the majority-minority districts, creating “super-majorities.” The plan was challenged as segregating minority voting power into a select few districts, thus harming the ability of minority voters to affect elections at-large and violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th Amendments.
By a 2-1 margin, the district court upheld the redistricting plan, with Pryor drafting the opinion. Pryor explained that the 2001 redistricting plan led to districts that became malapportioned in light of population changes in the 2010 Census, and that the adoption of the 2% deviation threshold required significant population shuffling to cure the malapportionment. The court found that the tighter deviation percentage and subsequent minority packing did not violate the Voting Rights Act or Constitution as vote dilution or racial discrimination. The court also dismissed the claims of some of the plaintiffs for lack of standing.
The Supreme Court reviewed the racial gerrymandering claims, reversing the district court and remanding for a rehearing before the three-judge district court. Writing in 2015 for a 5-4 majority, Justice Stephen Breyer explained that the district court erred by analyzing the redistricting plan as a whole on the state level instead of analyzing the racial gerrymandering claims on a district-by-district basis. The court also rejected Alabama’s argument that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required it to maintain the percentage of minority voters in majority-minority districts, and its claim that its goal of having equally-populated districts could be considered in determining if race was a predominant motivating factor in redistricting. The court also reversed the district court’s dismissals for lack of standing.
Free Speech
In the free speech context, Pryor has steered a middle course. Consistent with his concurrence in Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley discussed above, Pryor has written of the importance of First Amendment rights, while also regularly upholding government restrictions on speech in particular contexts.
In Jane Doe I v. Valencia College Board of Trustees, female students studying sonography at a Florida public college were pressured by school officials to allow fellow students to conduct transvaginal ultrasounds on them. When the students complained (and one refused to cooperate), school officials retaliated against them (failing the student who refused to submit and threatening to blacklist the students from a local hospital). Pryor, writing for a unanimous panel, reinstated the students’ First and Fourth Amendment claims after they were dismissed by a district court. He rejected the district court’s view that the students’ complaints constituted “school sponsored speech” subject to very limited First Amendment protection under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. Instead, the panel held the speech was subject to the more protective rule of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, under which it could be banned or punished only if the school could reasonably forecast that it would lead to substantial disruption at the school. Pryor further ruled that the exams constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, rejecting the law of other circuits that hold that the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable unless the alleged search was undertaken for an investigative or administrative purpose. Although the court did not rule that the defendants violated the First or Fourth Amendments, it revived both claims and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings.
In Mech v. School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, Pryor wrote an opinion for the 11th Circuit rejecting a First Amendment challenge to a school’s removal of banners promoting a tutoring business from its fences after the school discovered the owner of the business was a retired porn star whose pornography production business used the same mailing address as his “Happy/Fun Math Tutor” company. Although he found it a close question, Pryor, along with his colleagues, ultimately concluded that the tutoring banners – having been placed on the school’s fences and proclaiming the business to be a “partner” of the school – constituted government speech enjoying no First Amendment protection.
In First Vagabonds Church of God v. City of Orlando, Fla., Pryor upheld against First Amendment challenge a city ordinance requiring a permit to conduct “a large group feeding” (i.e., feeding large groups of homeless people) within a downtown park and limiting the number of permits available. The court held that even assuming the feeding constituted expressive conduct, the regulation was a valid time, place and manner restriction.
Powers of Congress/Federalism
Pryor’s record on federalism issues is relatively sparse. But in the handful of cases implicating the issue, he has regularly upheld federal statutes as falling within Congress’ constitutional powers, often in the context of challenges to criminal statutes.
Commerce Clause. Judge Pryor has rejected commerce clause challenges to several federal criminal statutes. For example, in United States v. Baston, the government challenged the district court’s failure to award restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 1596(a)(2) to a victim of sex trafficking for acts that occurred in Australia. Pryor, writing for the panel, explained that Congress approved of extraterritorial jurisdiction over sex trafficking in the Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, and that Congress had the power to enact extraterritorial laws under the foreign commerce clause. In particular, the panel found that Congress’ powers under the foreign commerce clause were analogous to its plenary powers under the Indian commerce clause, but nevertheless concluded that the extraterritorial scope of the Trafficking Act would be justified even under the more restricted powers of the interstate commerce clause.
Pryor similarly joined opinions upholding two criminal provisions, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b) (prohibiting parents from allowing a minor child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for purpose of producing child pornography) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (prohibiting convicted felons from possessing a firearm), against attacks that the statutes violated the commerce clause by regulating purely intrastate conduct. These cases are United States v. Wright (upholding § 922(g) and including a concurrence by Judge Pryor on an unrelated matter – that the rule of lenity should not apply to interpretation of the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines) and United States v. Paige (upholding § 2251(b)).
In the non-criminal context, in 907 Whitehead Street, Inc. v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Pryor similarly rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the USDA’s regulation (under the Animal Welfare Act) of the Hemingway Museum (and the Hemingway cats) because the museum used the cats in advertising to out-of-state visitors.
On the other hand, in Tundidor v. Miami-Dade County, Pryor joined a decision finding that a canal with an artificial obstruction that prevents travel is not navigable water sufficient to justify federal admiralty jurisdiction.
Spending Clause. In Benning v. Georgia, Pryor wrote a decision upholding RLUIPA as a valid exercise of Congress’s spending clause authority. Among other reasons, he explained that “the United States has a substantial interest in ensuring that state prisons that receive federal funds protect the federal civil rights of prisoners.” In the same decision, the court rejected the argument that RLUIPA violates the establishment clause. (The Supreme Court subsequently agreed with the establishment clause ruling in Cutter v. Wilkinson. Justice Thomas, concurring in Cutter, however, stated that “RLUIPA may well exceed the spending power.”)
Molly Runkle contributed extensively to this post, identifying, reviewing and analyzing the cases summarized above and writing the biographical summary.
Recommended Citation: Kevin Russell and Charles Davis, Potential nominee profile: William Pryor (Expanded), SCOTUSblog (Jan. 10, 2017, 3:35 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-william-pryor/ ||||| This week, Neil Gorsuch emerged as a front-runner to fill the vacancy left by the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. President Trump has indicated that he intends to nominate someone “very much in the mold of” Justice Scalia, and Neil Gorsuch is about as close as it gets.
A judge on the Denver-based Tenth Circuit, Gorsuch is known for his colorful writing style and textualist opinions. His background features sterling academic credentials (with degrees from Columbia, Harvard, and Oxford), clerkships with D.C. Circuit Judge David Sentelle and Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy, and service in the U.S. Department of Justice.
ADVERTISEMENT
Though born in Colorado, Gorsuch spent many years in Washington when his mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, served as EPA administrator under President Reagan. Thus, he’s more of an “inside the Beltway” candidate than many others on Trump’s list of 21 potential nominees
Like Scalia, Gorsuch is an ardent supporter of religious liberty, as demonstrated by cases such as the ObamaCare contraception mandate challenges brought by Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor and others involving religious monuments on public lands and prisoners’ free exercise rights.
They appear to have similar views about physician-assisted suicide, and their jurisprudence reflects a common theme of reading criminal statutes narrowly to favor defendants and not allowing the government to ignore mens rea requirements.
Senate leaders huddle with Trump ahead of Supreme Court battle https://t.co/bfh8iZ1BJk pic.twitter.com/U8HbbuMKPe — The Hill (@thehill) January 24, 2017
Just as Scalia was a champion of originalism, Gorsuch has demonstrated a commitment to following the original public meaning of the Constitution in countless opinions and speeches. As a former clerk recounted:
“Whenever a constitutional issue came up in our cases, he sent one of his clerks on a deep dive through the historical sources. ‘We need to get this right,’ was the memo — and right meant ‘as originally understood.’”
In his dissenting opinion in United States v. Nichols, for example, Gorsuch highlighted a constitutional issue lurking in a case dealing with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act — whether Congress may delegate to prosecutors the responsibility of defining the crimes they enforce.
Going back to first principles, Gorsuch wrote:
“There’s ample evidence … that the framers of the Constitution thought the compartmentalization of legislative power not just a tool of good government or necessary to protect the authority of Congress from encroachment by the Executive but essential to the preservation of the people’s liberty.”
In Cordova v. City of Albuquerque, a case seeking to make a constitutional claim out of a malicious prosecution (a common law tort), Gorsuch wrote that the Constitution:
“Isn’t some inkblot on which litigants may project their hopes and dreams … but a carefully drafted text judges are charged with applying according to its original public meaning. "If a party wishes to claim a constitutional right, it is incumbent on him to tell us where it lies, not to assume or stipulate with the other side that it must be in there someplace.”
In a speech delivered weeks after Scalia’s passing, Gorsuch declared:
“(I)t seems to me an assiduous focus on text, structure, and history is essential to the proper exercise of the judicial function. "That, yes, judges should be in the business of declaring what the law is using the traditional tools of interpretation, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views, always with an eye on the outcome, and engaged perhaps in some Benthamite calculation of pleasures and pains along the way.”
One notable area of difference from Scalia is their approach to administrative law. Gorsuch has suggested the Supreme Court should reconsider its Chevron doctrine, which affords federal agencies deference in interpreting statutes they are charged with administering.
Schumer doubles down on vow to block Trump Supreme Court nominee https://t.co/A4ScEy72y3 pic.twitter.com/LNVkA8TAyu — The Hill (@thehill) January 23, 2017
Though Scalia was not enamored with the Chevron decision, he did not seem interested in overruling it. In Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Gorsuch posited:
“(W)hat would happen in a world without Chevron? ... Surely Congress could and would continue to pass statutes to enforce. And just as surely agencies could and would continue to offer guidance on how they intend to enforce those statutes. "The only difference would be that courts would then fulfill their duty to exercise their independent judgment about what the law is … We managed to live with the administrative state before Chevron. We could do it again.”
As President Trump mulls over his selection to replace Justice Scalia, he has many fine options. Justice Scalia left big shoes to fill, but if the pick is Neil Gorsuch, he seems up to the task.
John G. Malcolm is the Director of and Elizabeth H. Slattery is a Legal Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill. ||||| Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, and confirmed shortly thereafter. Both his pre-judicial resumé and his body of work as a judge make him a natural fit for an appointment to the Supreme Court by a Republican president. He is relatively young (turning 50 this year), and his background is filled with sterling legal and academic credentials. He was a Marshall Scholar at the University of Oxford, graduated from Harvard Law School, clerked for prominent conservative judges (Judge David Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court), and was a high-
ranking official in the Bush Justice Department before his judicial appointment. He is celebrated as a keen legal thinker and a particularly incisive legal writer, with a flair that matches
— or at least evokes — that of the justice whose seat he would be nominated to fill. In fact, one study has identified him as the most natural successor to Justice Antonin Scalia on the Trump shortlist, both in terms of his judicial style and his substantive approach.
With perhaps one notable area of disagreement, Judge Gorsuch’s prominent decisions bear the comparison out. For one thing, the great compliment that Gorsuch’s legal writing is in a class with Scalia’s is deserved: Gorsuch’s opinions are exceptionally clear and routinely entertaining; he is an unusual pleasure to read, and it is always plain exactly what he thinks and why. Like Scalia, Gorsuch also seems to have a set of judicial/ideological commitments apart from his personal policy preferences that drive his decision-making. He is an ardent textualist (like Scalia); he believes criminal laws should be clear and interpreted in favor of defendants even if that hurts government prosecutions (like Scalia); he is skeptical of efforts to purge religious expression from public spaces (like Scalia); he is highly dubious of legislative history (like Scalia); and he is less than enamored of the dormant commerce clause (like Scalia). In fact, some of the parallels can be downright eerie. For example, the reasoning in Gorsuch’s 2008 concurrence in United States v. Hinckley, in which he argues that one possible reading of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act would probably violate the rarely invoked non-delegation principle, is exactly the same as that of Scalia’s 2012 dissent in Reynolds v. United States. The notable exception is one prominent concurrence last August, in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, in which Gorsuch criticized a doctrine of administrative law (called Chevron deference) that Scalia had long defended. Even here, however, there may be more in common than meets the eye.
Religion
Some of the most high-profile cases in which Gorsuch has cast a vote have involved the religion clauses of the Constitution (those prohibiting the establishment of religion and creating a right to free exercise), as well as congressional statutes expanding protection for religious adherents (known as RFRA and RLUIPA). Followers of the Supreme Court will recognize two recent cases in which Gorsuch participated on the 10th Circuit, Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell. In Hobby Lobby, Gorsuch wrote a concurrence in the en banc 10th Circuit that sided with the company and its owners. He stressed the need to accept these parties’ own conceptions regarding the requirements of their faith, and held (among other things) that they were likely to prevail on claims that the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act substantially burdened their religious exercise in violation of RFRA. This position was largely vindicated in the subsequent decision by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, in Little Sisters of the Poor, Gorsuch joined a group of 10th Circuit judges who dissented from denial of rehearing en banc when a panel of the court of appeals ruled against the Little Sisters on their RFRA claims about the same ACA mandate. There, again, the point was that the 10th Circuit had shown insufficient deference to the Little Sisters’ own articulation of the tenets of their religious beliefs. That position, too, was at least partially vindicated by the Supreme Court when it decided that the Little Sisters’ religious beliefs probably could be accommodated while still affording full and equal contraceptive coverage to their employees, and directed the parties and courts to consider such a solution on remand. Simply put, in cases that closely divided his court and the Supreme Court, Gorsuch has shown himself to be an ardent defender of religious liberties and pluralistic accommodations for religious adherents.
Gorsuch has also written or joined opinions – again, largely vindicated by the Supreme Court – that have criticized doctrines that limit religious expression in public spaces. In Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, in 2007, Gorsuch joined a dissent from denial of rehearing en banc in a case in which the 10th Circuit had limited the ability of the government to display a donated Ten Commandments monument in a public park without accepting all other offers of donated monuments. The subsequent Supreme Court decision reversing the 10th Circuit largely adopted the reasoning of that dissent. Gorsuch also has a pair of dissenting opinions in which he criticizes the “reasonable observer” test for establishment clause cases as far too likely to find impermissible endorsements of religion by the government when none was intended, and thus to prevent religious adherents from reasonably participating in public life. These cases are American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport, in 2010, and Green v. Haskell County Boad. of Commissioners, in 2009. The common thread in these cases is one that matters very deeply to conservatives: a sense that the government can permit public displays of religion – and can accommodate deeply held religious views – without either violating the religion clauses of the Constitution or destroying the effectiveness of government programs that occasionally run into religious objections. In his 2009 concurrence in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum , Scalia articulated very similar views. Gorsuch’s opinions on these issues are quite thoughtful, and demonstrate that he would be a natural successor to Scalia in adopting a pro-religion conception of the establishment clause.
Criminal Law
Another area in which Gorsuch has written persuasively in a manner that closely echoes Scalia relates to how to interpret criminal laws correctly, so as to avoid criminalizing potentially innocent conduct. One of Gorsuch’s most notable opinions in this area also happens to overlap with the hot-button issue of gun ownership — although the case is not about the Second Amendment, and doesn’t involve anything like the typical gun-rights groups.
A federal criminal law prohibits the knowing possession of a gun by a felon. This law has given rise to a debate about how best to read its limitation to “knowing” violations: Does it apply whenever a felon knowingly possesses a gun, or must violators also know that they have been convicted of a felony? This matters, because lots of minor crimes might technically be felonies, and lots of dispositions that seem inconsequential (because they involve no jail time) might technically be felony convictions. And the penalties for violating this law can be very high. In United States v. Games-Perez, in 2012, Gorsuch urged the 10th Circuit to review its rule holding that it is enough to support a conviction that the defendant knew he possessed the gun, whether or not he knew he was a felon. The opinion is an example of Gorsuch’s strong commitment to textualism, and a severe critique of using legislative history — particularly to make criminal what might otherwise be innocent. Accordingly, it is easy to hear clear echoes of Scalia’s views regarding the proper reading of statutes — especially criminal statutes — as well as the importance of focusing on ordinary usage and linguistic rules.
A few examples make the resemblance even clearer. Take this sentence from Games-Perez: “For current purposes, just stating Capps‘s holding makes the problem clear enough: its interpretation—reading Congress’s mens rea requirement as leapfrogging over the first statutorily specified element and touching down only at the second listed element—defies grammatical gravity and linguistic logic.” Or this passage, which contains both an endorsement of Second Amendment rights and a classic Scalia principle about attaching mens rea requirements to the element that criminalizes innocent conduct:
Besides, even if the government could somehow manage to squeeze an ambiguity out of the plain statutory text before us, it faces another intractable problem. The Supreme Court has long recognized a “presumption” grounded in our common law tradition that a mens rea requirement attaches to “each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct.” … Together §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2) operate to criminalize the possession of any kind of gun. But gun possession is often lawful and sometimes even protected as a matter of constitutional right. The only statutory element separating innocent (even constitutionally protected) gun possession from criminal conduct in §§ 922(g) and 924(a) is a prior felony conviction. So the presumption that the government must prove mens rea here applies with full force.
Either of these passages would be perfectly at home in a canonical Scalia opinion about how to read the criminal law. And, it is worth noting, this means that Gorsuch, just like Scalia, is sometimes willing to read criminal laws more narrowly in a way that disfavors the prosecution – especially when the Second Amendment or another constitutional protection is involved.
Death Penalty
Gorsuch, like Scalia, has not been a friendly vote for death penalty petitioners pursuing relief from their sentences through federal habeas. But it is important to recognize that, as in the case of Scalia, this makes plenty of sense in light of Gorsuch’s commitment to reading statutes according to their plain text. During the 1990s, Congress passed a statute called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act that – true to its name – was intended to limit federal habeas in order to make the death penalty easier to carry out. Strict readers of AEDPA are unlikely to find many cases in which a petitioner qualifies for relief. This is particularly true in the courts of appeals, where many of the death penalty habeas cases are uncontroversial —or at least not nearly as close as the cases that make their way to the Supreme Court. Whatever the source of the position, however, it is clear that Gorsuch’s position in death penalty cases is likely to be quite close to Scalia’s, and very unlikely to make the court any more solicitous of the claims of capital defendants.
Dormant Commerce Clause
Another area of the law in which Gorsuch has shown both his writing talent and his similarity to Scalia is in the application (and critique) of doctrines surrounding the so-called “dormant commerce clause.” These doctrines treat the commerce clause not only as a grant of power to Congress to make laws regulating interstate commerce, but as a kind of presumptive limitation on the power of states to make laws that either unduly burden or unfairly discriminate against interstate commerce, without regard to whether Congress has ever passed a law in the relevant area. Because — as its name suggests — the dormant commerce clause cannot actually be found in the text of the Constitution, Scalia eventually came around to the view that it should not be a thing, and refused to endorse any future expansions of the doctrine. For example, in 2015, in a dissenting opinion in Comptroller v. Wynne, Scalia stated: “The fundamental problem with our negative Commerce Clause cases is that the Constitution does not contain a negative Commerce Clause.” Although a court of appeals judge lacks the same freedom to disparage and/or depart from existing Supreme Court precedent, Gorsuch’s opinions also reveal a measure of distrust towards unwritten constitutional provisions like the dormant commerce clause.
For example, a 2015 10th Circuit decision written by Gorsuch, Energy and Environment Legal Institute v. Epel, declined to apply the dormant commerce clause to strike down a clean-energy program created by Colorado on the grounds that it might negatively affect traditional energy producers outside the state. The opinion explains that this result is consistent with the limited reach of the dormant commerce clause’s “judicial free trade policy” even under existing precedent. But while acknowledging that lower courts must take the Supreme Court’s doctrine as they find it, Gorsuch’s opinion shows respect for the doctrine’s “[d]etractors,” like Scalia, who “find dormant commerce doctrine absent from the Constitution’s text and incompatible with its structure.” Though Gorsuch’s personal constitution seems to require him to write clearly about the many unclear aspects of the doctrine, his opinion plainly takes some joy in the act of demonstrating that not only does the dormant commerce clause not apply — the doctrine also doesn’t make much sense. That same instinct is present in a prominent concurrence last year in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, in which Gorsuch singled out one aspect of dormant commerce clause doctrine—the Quill rule that exempts out-of-state mail order sales from state sales tax—as an “analytical oddity” that “seems deliberately designed” to be overruled eventually. This opinion aligned him with Justice Anthony Kennedy (who has called for overruling Quill), and again with Scalia, who identified Quill as part of the “bestiary of ad hoc tests and ad hoc exceptions that we apply nowadays” under the dormant commerce clause.
The dormant commerce clause isn’t a particularly hot-button issue, nor does it have obvious liberal/conservative fault lines. But it’s noteworthy that criticism of the dormant commerce clause is of a piece with criticism of the “right to privacy” that undergirds the Supreme Court ‘s abortion jurisprudence, as well as other judge-made doctrines that do not have a strong connection to the constitutional text. Again, Gorsuch’s opinions seem to follow the lead of textualists and federalists like Scalia in expressing great skepticism towards such doctrines, which allow judges to strike down duly enacted local laws on the basis of vague principles that cannot be found in the concrete text of the national charter.
Administrative Law
Finally, there is administrative law—the one area that seems to demonstrate some real distance between Scalia and Gorsuch. Last August, Gorsuch made real waves in the normally sleepy world of administrative law by advocating the end of a doctrine that has been tied closely to the functioning of the administrative state and the executive branch since the mid-1980s — a doctrine called Chevron deference. The basic idea behind Chevron is that, when Congress enacts a broadly worded statute whose precise contours are ambiguous, the courts should permit the federal agencies that are charged with administering the statute to enforce it in any manner that is not clearly forbidden. Scalia was a judge on the D.C. Circuit (which does more agency review than any other court), and he was a strong advocate for Chevron’s basic take on agency review and the flexibility that it preserved in the administrative state: He often warned that the consequences of efforts to limit or tinker with its model could be severe. Gorsuch’s recent opinions in Gutierrez-Brizuela — he wrote both the majority opinion and a concurrence to his own opinion to express his personal views on the doctrine — expressly urge: “We managed to live with the administrative state before Chevron. We could do it again.” Ironically, Gorsuch’s chief complaint about Chevron doctrine was something that would have been close to Scalia’s heart — namely, that it empowers agencies to take the power of statutory interpretation away from courts, and subjects judicial decision-making to administrative review, rather than the other way around.
Gorsuch’s opinion — in which he stakes out ground that few have sought to defend — is a very compelling read, and it is unfair to try to summarize it in a few sentences. But it seems quite clear that: (1) Gorsuch’s views on administrative law are meaningfully different from Scalia’s in a way that could be described as even more conservative; and yet (2) the difference is not as profound as one might think. Unlike Scalia, Gorsuch really does want to apply the basic Gorsuch/Scalia take on ordinary statutes to administrative statutes as well. He believes even these broadly worded enforcement statutes have objective meanings that can be understood from their texts; that it is the job of the courts to say what those laws mean and to tell agencies when they do not have the best reading; and that if the agency disagrees, the only proper recourse is for Congress to change the law or the Supreme Court to correct the error. Scalia, on the other hand, wanted to limit courts to the role of reviewing agency implementations of these kinds of statutes for clear error in order to prevent “ossification,” recognizing that the understanding of these kinds of laws might need to change from time to time to accommodate changing priorities among presidents and changing conditions on the ground.
The reason that difference is less pronounced than you might think is that Scalia’s take on Chevron was always a little different from others’, in part to address the very concerns that Gorsuch so clearly articulates. First, Scalia was much more willing than others to say that a particular agency position was beyond the statutory bounds, even when the words at issue in the statute were ambiguous (at least in isolation). For example, in MCI Telecommunications Group v. AT&T, in 1994, Scalia held that the term “modify” unambiguously excludes major changes. In fact, in a Duke Law Journal piece in 1989 Scalia once said strict textualists like him (and, say, Judge Gorsuch) would be less likely to find statutes ambiguous for purposes of Chevron because of their attention to the details of statutory text and their unwillingness to consider broad purposes and legislative history. Such an approach makes a statute’s delegation to agencies much narrower, notwithstanding Chevron. And second, Scalia wanted Chevron to apply all the time precisely to avoid a situation in which a court would give the statute its best reading and the agency could later revise that understanding with the benefit of newfound deference — one of Gorsuch’s chief complaints. In Gutierrez-Brizuela, Gorsuch criticized the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X, which permitted an agency to bypass a Supreme Court decision through Chevron deference, echoing Scalia’s own dissent in Brand X, in which Scalia criticized the court for having adopted a version of Chevron that led to the spectacle of agencies bypassing Supreme Court readings of statutes.
In short, Gorsuch definitely has a different take from Scalia on the administrative state — one that grants it less power, and so accords even more closely with the conservative conception of small government. Indeed, this is an area in which Gorsuch is plainly a thought leader, expressing judicial sentiments many conservatives with similar concerns have rarely voiced, and which even Scalia might have bristled at. But given their parallel commitments to textualism and their parallel understandings of the relative roles of agencies and courts, even this seems like a bridgeable divide between Gorsuch and the justice he might replace. Gorsuch is still a very natural choice for any Republican president to nominate as a replacement for Scalia — someone who would espouse similar principles, stand firm on similar doctrinal commitments, reach similar outcomes, and even fill a similar role as one of the court’s most articulate defenders of conservative judicial theory.
Andrew Hamm contributed extensively to this post, identifying, reviewing and analyzing the cases summarized above.
Recommended Citation: Eric Citron, Potential nominee profile: Neil Gorsuch, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 13, 2017, 12:53 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/ ||||| Take Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, who once called the Obama administration the most corrupt presidency in history, until Mr. Issa nearly lost his seat and claimed he had cooperated with Mr. Obama. His district appears to be getting more ethnically diverse, but it still has affluent Republican strongholds that have helped him remain in power since 2003. The statement takes the Republican nonposition to an art form:
“America is a nation of immigrants. Our country has been built by the hard work of those who’ve come here for liberty and to find hope in a land of opportunity. A welcoming America is not incompatible with a strong and secure America. We can put in place a vetting process that the American people have confidence in. To do so, the Congress must work with the administration to swiftly reestablish strong and clear screening procedures so that our rich tradition of immigration is not permanently threatened by those who wish us harm.”
Democrats demand investigation into Homeland Security
Richard J. Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, Illinois’ two Democratic senators, demanded an independent investigation by the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security into the way it carried out Mr. Trump’s executive order on immigration.
The call came amid reports that Customs and Border Protection repeatedly ignored judicial orders to release travelers from detention facilities at airports across the country.
“We are particularly alarmed by allegations that C.B.P. officers and potentially other department personnel failed to comply with a temporary restraining order,” they wrote.
“The United States Constitution means little if law enforcement agents disregard it, or if Americans are unwilling to defend its principles and respect foundational constitutional rights, from due process to equal protection under the law. The American people are relying on your independent investigators to serve as a check against a powerful law enforcement agency that may be violating the civil rights of LPRs and operating in violation of the law.”
Jordanian king will have breakfast with Pence
Jordan’s king, Abdullah II, is scheduled to have breakfast on Monday with Vice President Mike Pence at the vice president’s residence a few miles from the White House. He would certainly like to get a little closer than that.
Amid turmoil over Mr. Trump’s order to halt entries from seven predominantly Muslim countries, the king probably has issues he would like to bring up with the man signing the executive orders. But Mr. Trump does not appear keen to host Abdullah II at the White House, certainly not before Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, pays a visit.
Jordan’s king will also be meeting with leaders on Capitol Hill. They are likely to get an earful.
To criticize Trump, senators lean on a friend
Maybe senators are so scared of Mr. Trump that they need a friend for support.
First, on Sunday, Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, released a joint statement condemning Mr. Trump’s executive order blocking refugees, visitors and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Of course, those two are practically their own political party — called McGraham by some, Jindsey by others. | Donald Trump is returning to prime time. The president on Monday morning announced via Twitter that he'd be naming his pick for the Supreme Court live on TV. The 8pm Tuesday announcement speeds up the original plan, which the New York Times reports had Antonin Scalia's replacement being named Thursday. The Times bets on one of these three federal appeals judges: Neil Gorsuch, Thomas Hardiman, and William Pryor (the links take you to SCOTUSblog profiles of each). Business Insider puts its money on the 51-year-old Hardiman, and gives three reasons why: A 95-0 vote got him onto the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, with both Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein giving him the green light; Maryanne Trump Barry (that would be the president's sister) is a fan of him; and he's "down-to-earth." But the Hill notes Trump suggested he would go with "very much in the mold of" Justice Scalia, and "Neil Gorsuch is about as close as it gets." It outlines why here. |
On the Sunday afternoon before Thanksgiving, Barack Obama sat in the office cabin of Air Force One wearing a look of heavy-lidded annoyance. The Affordable Care Act, his signature domestic achievement and, for all its limitations, the most ambitious social legislation since the Great Society, half a century ago, was in jeopardy. His approval rating was down to forty per cent—lower than George W. Bush’s in December of 2005, when Bush admitted that the decision to invade Iraq had been based on intelligence that “turned out to be wrong.” Also, Obama said thickly, “I’ve got a fat lip.”
That morning, while playing basketball at F.B.I. headquarters, Obama went up for a rebound and came down empty-handed; he got, instead, the sort of humbling reserved for middle-aged men who stubbornly refuse the transition to the elliptical machine and Gentle Healing Yoga. This had happened before. In 2010, after taking a self-described “shellacking” in the midterm elections, Obama caught an elbow in the mouth while playing ball at Fort McNair. He wound up with a dozen stitches. The culprit then was one Reynaldo Decerega, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. Decerega wasn’t invited to play again, though Obama sent him a photograph inscribed “For Rey, the only guy that ever hit the President and didn’t get arrested. Barack.”
This time, the injury was slighter and no assailant was named—“I think it was the ball,” Obama said—but the President needed little assistance in divining the metaphor in this latest insult to his person. The pundits were declaring 2013 the worst year of his Presidency. The Republicans had been sniping at Obamacare since its passage, nearly four years earlier, and HealthCare.gov, a Web site that was undertested and overmatched, was a gift to them. There were other beribboned boxes under the tree: Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency; the failure to get anything passed on gun control or immigration reform; the unseemly waffling over whether the Egyptian coup was a coup; the solidifying wisdom in Washington that the President was “disengaged,” allergic to the forensic and seductive arts of political persuasion. The congressional Republicans quashed nearly all legislation as a matter of principle and shut down the government for sixteen days, before relenting out of sheer tactical confusion and embarrassment—and yet it was the President’s miseries that dominated the year-end summations.
Obama worried his lip with his tongue and the tip of his index finger. He sighed, slumping in his chair. The night before, Iran had agreed to freeze its nuclear program for six months. A final pact, if one could be arrived at, would end the prospect of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and the hell that could follow: terror attacks, proxy battles, regional war—take your pick. An agreement could even help normalize relations between the United States and Iran for the first time since the Islamic Revolution, in 1979. Obama put the odds of a final accord at less than even, but, still, how was this not good news?
The answer had arrived with breakfast. The Saudis, the Israelis, and the Republican leadership made their opposition known on the Sunday-morning shows and through diplomatic channels. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, called the agreement a “historic mistake.” Even a putative ally like New York Senator Chuck Schumer could go on “Meet the Press” and, fearing no retribution from the White House, hint that he might help bollix up the deal. Obama hadn’t tuned in. “I don’t watch Sunday-morning shows,” he said. “That’s been a well-established rule.” Instead, he went out to play ball.
Usually, Obama spends Sundays with his family. Now he was headed for a three-day fund-raising trip to Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, rattling the cup in one preposterous mansion after another. The prospect was dispiriting. Obama had already run his last race, and the chances that the Democratic Party will win back the House of Representatives in the 2014 midterm elections are slight. The Democrats could, in fact, lose the Senate.
For an important trip abroad, Air Force One is crowded with advisers, military aides, Secret Service people, support staff, the press pool. This trip was smaller, and I was along for the ride, sitting in a guest cabin with a couple of aides and a staffer who was tasked with keeping watch over a dark suit bag with a tag reading “The President.”
Obama spent his flight time in the private quarters in the nose of the plane, in his office compartment, or in a conference room. At one point on the trip from Andrews Air Force Base to Seattle, I was invited up front for a conversation. Obama was sitting at his desk watching the Miami Dolphins–Carolina Panthers game. Slender as a switch, he wore a white shirt and dark slacks; a flight jacket was slung over his high-backed leather chair. As we talked, mainly about the Middle East, his eyes wandered to the game. Reports of multiple concussions and retired players with early-onset dementia had been in the news all year, and so, before I left, I asked if he didn’t feel at all ambivalent about following the sport. He didn’t.
“I would not let my son play pro football,” he conceded. “But, I mean, you wrote a lot about boxing, right? We’re sort of in the same realm.”
The Miami defense was taking on a Keystone Kops quality, and Obama, who had lost hope on a Bears contest, was starting to lose interest in the Dolphins. “At this point, there’s a little bit of caveat emptor,” he went on. “These guys, they know what they’re doing. They know what they’re buying into. It is no longer a secret. It’s sort of the feeling I have about smokers, you know?”
Obama chewed furtively on a piece of Nicorette. His carriage and the cadence of his conversation are usually so measured that I was thrown by the lingering habit, the trace of indiscipline. “I’m not a purist,” he said.
I—ON THE CLOCK
When Obama leaves the White House, on January 20, 2017, he will write a memoir. “Now, that’s a slam dunk,” the former Obama adviser David Axelrod told me. Andrew Wylie, a leading literary agent, said he thought that publishers would pay between seventeen and twenty million dollars for the book—the most ever for a work of nonfiction—and around twelve million for Michelle Obama’s memoirs. (The First Lady has already started work on hers.) Obama’s best friend, Marty Nesbitt, a Chicago businessman, told me that, important as the memoir might be to Obama’s legacy and to his finances, “I don’t see him locked up in a room writing all the time. His capacity to crank stuff out is amazing. When he was writing his second book, he would say, ‘I’m gonna get up at seven and write this chapter—and at nine we’ll play golf.’ I would think no, it’s going to be a lot later, but he would knock on my door at nine and say, ‘Let’s go.’ ” Nesbitt thinks that Obama will work on issues such as human rights, education, and “health and wellness.” “He was a local community organizer when he was young,” he said. “At the back end of his career, I see him as an international and national community organizer.”
Yet no post-Presidential project—even one as worthy as Ulysses S. Grant’s memoirs or Jimmy Carter’s efforts to eradicate the Guinea worm in Africa—can overshadow what can be accomplished in the White House with the stroke of a pen or a phone call. And, after a miserable year, Obama’s Presidency is on the clock. Hard as it has been to pass legislation since the Republicans took the House, in 2010, the coming year is a marker, the final interval before the fight for succession becomes politically all-consuming.
“The conventional wisdom is that a President’s second term is a matter of minimizing the damage and playing defense rather than playing offense,” Obama said in one of our conversations on the trip and at the White House. “But, as I’ve reminded my team, the day after I was inaugurated for a second term, we’re in charge of the largest organization on earth, and our capacity to do some good, both domestically and around the world, is unsurpassed, even if nobody is paying attention.”
In 2007, at the start of Obama’s Presidential campaign, the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin and her husband, Richard Goodwin, who worked in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, visited him in his Senate office. “I have no desire to be one of those Presidents who are just on the list—you see their pictures lined up on the wall,” Obama told them. “I really want to be a President who makes a difference.” As she put it to me then, “There was the sense that he wanted to be big. He didn’t want to be Millard Fillmore or Franklin Pierce.”
The question is whether Obama will satisfy the standard he set for himself. His biggest early disappointment as President was being forced to recognize that his romantic vision of a post-partisan era, in which there are no red states or blue states, only the United States, was, in practical terms, a fantasy. It was a difficult fantasy to relinquish. The spirit of national conciliation was more than the rhetorical pixie dust of Obama’s 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention, in Boston, which had brought him to delirious national attention. It was also an elemental component of his self-conception, his sense that he was uniquely suited to transcend ideology and the grubby battles of the day. Obama is defensive about this now. “My speech in Boston was an aspirational speech,” he said. “It was not a description of our politics. It was a description of what I saw in the American people.”
The structures of American division came into high relief once he was in office. The debate over the proper scale and scope of the federal government dates to the Founders, but it has intensified since the Reagan revolution. Both Bill Clinton and Obama have spent as much time defending progressive advances—from Social Security and Medicare to voting rights and abortion rights—as they have trying to extend them. The Republican Party is living through the late-mannerist phase of that revolution, fuelled less by ideas than by resentments. The moderate Republican tradition is all but gone, and the reactionaries who claim Reagan’s banner display none of his ideological finesse. Rejection is all. Obama can never be opposed vehemently enough.
The dream of bipartisan coöperation glimmered again after Obama won reëlection against Mitt Romney with fifty-one per cent of the popular vote. The President talked of the election breaking the “fever” in Washington. “We didn’t expect the floodgates would open and Boehner would be Tip O’Neill to our Reagan,” Dan Pfeiffer, a senior adviser to the President, said. But reëlection, he thought, had “liberated” Obama. The second Inaugural Address was the most liberal since the nineteen-sixties. Obama pledged to take ambitious action on climate change, immigration, gun control, voting rights, infrastructure, tax reform. He warned of a nation at “perpetual war.” He celebrated the Seneca Falls Convention, the Selma-to-Montgomery marches, and the Stonewall riots as events in a narrative of righteous struggle. He pledged “collective action” on economic fairness, and declared that the legacy of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid does “not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.” Pfeiffer said, “His point was that Congress won’t set the limits of what I will do. I won’t trim my vision. And, even if I can’t get it done, I will set the stage so it does get done” in the years ahead. Then came 2013, annus horribilis.
Obama’s election was one of the great markers in the black freedom struggle. In the electoral realm, ironically, the country may be more racially divided than it has been in a generation. Obama lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history. The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country. Obama’s drop in the polls in 2013 was especially grave among white voters. “There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” Obama said. “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.” The latter group has been less in evidence of late.
“There is a historic connection between some of the arguments that we have politically and the history of race in our country, and sometimes it’s hard to disentangle those issues,” he went on. “You can be somebody who, for very legitimate reasons, worries about the power of the federal government—that it’s distant, that it’s bureaucratic, that it’s not accountable—and as a consequence you think that more power should reside in the hands of state governments. But what’s also true, obviously, is that philosophy is wrapped up in the history of states’ rights in the context of the civil-rights movement and the Civil War and Calhoun. There’s a pretty long history there. And so I think it’s important for progressives not to dismiss out of hand arguments against my Presidency or the Democratic Party or Bill Clinton or anybody just because there’s some overlap between those criticisms and the criticisms that traditionally were directed against those who were trying to bring about greater equality for African-Americans. The flip side is I think it’s important for conservatives to recognize and answer some of the problems that are posed by that history, so that they understand if I am concerned about leaving it up to states to expand Medicaid that it may not simply be because I am this power-hungry guy in Washington who wants to crush states’ rights but, rather, because we are one country and I think it is going to be important for the entire country to make sure that poor folks in Mississippi and not just Massachusetts are healthy.”
Obama’s advisers are convinced that if the Republicans don’t find a way to attract non-white voters, particularly Hispanics and Asians, they may lose the White House for two or three more election cycles. And yet Obama still makes every effort to maintain his careful, balancing tone, as if the unifying moment were still out there somewhere in the middle distance. “There were times in our history where Democrats didn’t seem to be paying enough attention to the concerns of middle-class folks or working-class folks, black or white,” he said. “And this was one of the great gifts of Bill Clinton to the Party—to say, you know what, it’s entirely legitimate for folks to be concerned about getting mugged, and you can’t just talk about police abuse. How about folks not feeling safe outside their homes? It’s all fine and good for you to want to do something about poverty, but if the only mechanism you have is raising taxes on folks who are already feeling strapped, then maybe you need to widen your lens a little bit. And I think that the Democratic Party is better for it. But that was a process. And I am confident that the Republicans will go through that same process.”
For the moment, though, the opposition party is content to define itself, precisely, by its opposition. As Obama, a fan of the “Godfather” movies, has put it, “It turns out Marlon Brando had it easy, because, when it comes to Congress, there is no such thing as an offer they can’t refuse.”
II—THE LONG VIEW
At dusk, Air Force One touched down at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Obama and his adviser Valerie Jarrett stood for a moment on the tarmac gazing at Mt. Rainier, the snow a candied pink. Then Obama nodded. Moment over. They got in the car and headed for town. Obama’s limousine, a Cadillac said to weigh as much as fifteen thousand pounds, is known as the Beast. It is armored with ceramic, titanium, aluminum, and steel to withstand bomb blasts, and it is sealed in case of biochemical attack. The doors are as heavy as those on a Boeing 757. The tires are gigantic “run-flats,” reinforced with Kevlar. A supply of blood matching the President’s type is kept in the trunk.
The Beast ascended the driveway of Jon Shirley, in the Seattle suburb of Medina, on Lake Washington. (Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates live in town, too.) Shirley earned his pile during the early days of high tech, first at Tandy and then, in the eighties, at Microsoft, where he served as president. Shirley’s lawn is littered with gargantuan modern sculptures. A Claes Oldenburg safety pin loomed in the dark. The Beast pulled up to Shirley’s front door.
One of the enduring mysteries of the Obama years is that so many members of the hyper-deluxe economy—corporate C.E.O.s and Wall Street bankers—have abandoned him. The Dow is more than twice what it was when Obama took office, in 2009; corporate profits are higher than they have been since the end of the Second World War; the financial crisis of 2008-09 vaporized more than nine trillion dollars in real-estate value, and no major purveyor of bogus mortgages or dodgy derivatives went to jail. Obama bruised some feelings once or twice with remarks about “fat-cat bankers” and “reckless behavior and unchecked excess,” but, in general, he dares not offend. In 2011, at an annual dinner he holds at the White House with American historians, he asked the group to help him find a language in which he could address the problem of growing inequality without being accused of class warfare.
Inside Shirley’s house, blue-chip works of modern art—paintings, sculpture, installations—were on every wall, in every corner: Katz, Kline, Klein, Pollock, Zhang Huan, Richter, Arp, Rothko, Close, Calder. The house measures more than twenty-seven thousand square feet. There are only two bedrooms. In the library, the President went through a familiar fund-raiser routine: a pre-event private “clutch,” where he shakes hands, makes small talk, and poses for pictures with an inner group—the host, the governor, the chosen.
Down the hall, in a room scaled like an airplane hangar, about seventy guests, having paid sixteen thousand dollars each to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee kitty, ate dinner and waited. Near some very artistic furniture, I stood with Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s most intimate consigliere. To admirers, Jarrett is known as “the third Obama”; to wary aides, who envy her long history with the Obamas and her easy access to the living quarters of the White House, she is the Night Stalker. Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, David Plouffe, and many others in the Administration have clashed with her. They are gone. She remains—a constant presence, at meetings, at meals, in the Beast. While we were waiting for Obama to speak to the group, I asked Jarrett whether the health-care rollout had been the worst political fiasco Obama had confronted so far.
“I really don’t think so,” she said. Like all Obama advisers, she was convinced that the problems would get “fixed”—just as Social Security was fixed after a balky start, in 1937—and the memory of the botched rollout would recede. That was the hope and that was the spin. And then she said something that I’ve come to think of as the Administration’s mantra: “The President always takes the long view.”
That appeal to patience and historical reckoning, an appeal that risks a maddening high-mindedness, is something that everyone around Obama trots out to combat the hysterias of any given moment. “He has learned through those vicissitudes that every day is Election Day in Washington and everyone is writing history in ten-minute intervals,” Axelrod told me. “But the truth is that history is written over a long period of time—and he will be judged in the long term.”
Obama stepped up to a platform and went to work. First ingratiation, then gratitude, then answers. He expressed awe at the sight of Mt. Rainier. Being in Seattle, he said, made him “feel the spirit of my mom,” the late Ann Dunham, who went to high school nearby, on Mercer Island. He praised his host’s hospitality. (“The only problem when I come to Jon’s house is I want to just kind of roam around and check stuff out, and instead I’ve got to talk.”) Then came a version of the long-game riff: “One thing that I always try to emphasize is that, if you look at American history, there have been frequent occasions in which it looked like we had insoluble problems—either economic, political, security—and, as long as there were those who stayed steady and clear-eyed and persistent, eventually we came up with an answer.”
As Obama ticked off a list of first-term achievements—the economic rescue, the forty-four straight months of job growth, a reduction in carbon emissions, a spike in clean-energy technology—he seemed efficient but contained, running at three-quarters speed, like an athlete playing a midseason road game of modest consequence; he was performing just hard enough to leave a decent impression, get paid, and avoid injury. Even in front of West Coast liberals, he is always careful to disavow liberalism—the word, anyway. “I’m not a particularly ideological person,” Obama told Jon Shirley and his guests. “There’s things, some values I feel passionately about.” He said that these included making sure that everybody is “being treated with dignity or respect regardless of what they look like or what their last name is or who they love,” providing a strong defense, and “leaving a planet that is as spectacular as the one we inherited from our parents and our grandparents.” He continued, “So there are values I’m passionate about, but I’m pretty pragmatic when it comes to how we get there.”
Obama said he’d take some questions—in “boy, girl, boy, girl” order. He tried to rally the Democrats and expressed dismay with the opposition. (“There are reasonable conservatives and there are those who just want to burn down the house.”) He played both sides of the environment issues, rehearsing the arguments for and against the Keystone pipeline and sympathizing with the desire of China and India to lift millions out of poverty—but if they consume energy the way the United States has “we’ll be four feet under water.” This is the archetypal Obama habit of mind and politics, the calm, professorial immersion in complexity played out in front of ardent supporters who crave a rallying cry. It’s what compelled him to declare himself a non-pacifist as he was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, in Oslo, and praise Ronald Reagan in a Democratic primary debate.
And that was the end of the performance. A few minutes later, the motorcade was snaking through the streets of suburban Seattle—kids in pajamas holding signs and sparklers, the occasional protester, Obama secured in the back seat of the Beast. He could hear nothing. The windows of his car are five inches thick.
III—PRESIDENTIAL M&M’S
The next morning, a Monday, I woke early and turned on CNN. Senator Lindsey Graham, who is facing a primary challenge from four Tea Party candidates in South Carolina, was saying with utter confidence that Iran had hoodwinked the Administration in Geneva. Next came a poll showing that the majority of the country now believed that the President was neither truthful nor honest. The announcer added with a smile that GQ had put Obama at No. 17 on its “least influential” list—right up there with Pope Benedict XVI in his retirement, the cicadas that never showed up last summer, and Manti Te’o’s fake dead girlfriend.
In the hotel lobby, I met Jeff Tiller, who works for the White House press operation. In college, he became interested in politics and later joined Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign. From there, he volunteered at the White House, which led to a string of staff jobs, and eventually he was doing advance work all over the world for the White House. The aides on the plane were like Tiller—committed members of a cheerful, overworked microculture who could barely conceal their pleasure in Presidential propinquity. I’m twenty-seven and this is my thirty-second time on Air Force One. “I pinch myself sometimes,” Tiller said. Dan Pfeiffer, who has been with Obama since 2007, was so overworked last year that he suffered a series of mini-strokes. “But no worries,” he told me. “I’m good!”
We arrived in San Francisco, and the motorcade raced along, free of traffic and red lights, from the airport to a community center in Chinatown named after Betty Ong, a flight attendant who perished when American Airlines Flight 11 was hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center. Obama was to give a speech on immigration. Out the window, you could see people waving, people hoisting their babies as if to witness history, people holding signs protesting one issue or another—the Keystone pipeline, especially—and, everywhere, the iPhone clickers, the Samsung snappers.
The Beast pulled under a makeshift security tent. Obama gets to events like these through underground hallways, industrial kitchens, holding rooms—all of which have been checked for bombs. At the Ong Center, he met with his hosts and their children. (“I think I have some Presidential M&M’s for you!”) People get goggle-eyed when it’s their turn for a picture. Obama tries to put them at ease: “C’mon in here! Let’s do this!” Sometimes there is teasing of the mildest sort: “Chuck Taylor All-Stars! Old style, baby!” A woman told the President that she was six months pregnant. She didn’t look it. “Whoa! Don’t tell that to Michelle. She’ll be all . . .” The woman said she was having a girl. Obama was delighted: “Daughters! You can’t beat ’em!” He pulled her in for the photo. From long experience, Obama has learned what works for him in pictures: a broad, toothy smile. A millisecond after the flash, the sash releases, the smile drops, a curtain falling.
A little later, Betty Ong’s mother and siblings arrived. Obama drew them into a huddle. I heard him saying that Betty was a hero, though “obviously, the heartache never goes away.” Obama really is skilled at this kind of thing, the kibbitzing and the expressions of sympathy, the hugging and the eulogizing and the celebrating, the sheer animal activity of human politics—but he suffers an anxiety of comparison. Bill Clinton was, and is, the master, a hyper-extrovert whose freakish memory for names and faces, and whose indomitable will to enfold and charm everyone in his path, remains unmatched. Obama can be a dynamic speaker before large audiences and charming in very small groups, but, like a normal human being and unlike the near-pathological personalities who have so often held the office, he is depleted by the act of schmoozing a group of a hundred as if it were an intimate gathering. At fund-raisers, he would rather eat privately with a couple of aides before going out to perform. According to the Wall Street Journal, when Jeffrey Katzenberg threw a multi-million-dollar fund-raiser in Los Angeles two years ago, he told the President’s staff that he expected Obama to stop at each of the fourteen tables and talk for a while. No one would have had to ask Clinton. Obama’s staffers were alarmed. When you talk about this with people in Obamaland, they let on that Clinton borders on the obsessive—as if the appetite for connection were related to what got him in such deep trouble.
“Obama is a genuinely respectful person, but he doesn’t try to seduce everyone,” Axelrod said. “It’s never going to be who he’ll be.” Obama doesn’t love fund-raising, he went on, “and, if you don’t love it in the first place, you’re not likely to grow fonder of it over time.”
Obama has other talents that serve him well in public. Like a seasoned standup comedian, he has learned that a well-timed heckler can be his ally. It allows him to dramatize his open-mindedness, even his own philosophical ambivalences about a particularly difficult political or moral question. Last May, at the National Defense University, where he was giving a speech on counter-terrorism, a woman named Medea Benjamin, the co-founder of the group Code Pink, interrupted him, loudly and at length, to talk about drone strikes and about closing the American prison at Guantánamo Bay. While some in the audience tried to drown her out with applause, and security people proceeded to drag her away, Obama asserted Benjamin’s right to “free speech,” and declared, “The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to.”
At the Ong Center, an undocumented immigrant from South Korea named Ju Hong was in the crowd lined up behind the President. Toward the end of Obama’s speech, Ju Hong, a Berkeley graduate, broke in, demanding that the President use his executive powers to stop deportations.
Obama wheeled around. “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so, but we’re also a nation of laws,” he said, making his case to a wash of applause.
At the next event, a fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee at a music venue, the SFJAZZ Center, Obama met the host’s family (“Hold on, we got some White House M&M’s”) and then made his way to the backstage holding area. You could hear the murmur of security communications: “Renegade with greeters”—Renegade being Obama’s Secret Service handle.
Obama worked with more enthusiasm than at the midday event. He did the polite handshake; the full pull-in; the hug and double backslap; the slap-shake; the solicitous arm-around-the-older woman. (“And you stand here. . . . Perfect!”)
The clutch over, the crowd cleared away, Obama turned to his aides and said, “How many we got out there?”
“Five hundred. Five-fifty.”
“Five-fifty?” Obama said, walking toward the wings of the stage. “What are we talking about? Politics? Can’t we talk about something else? Sports?”
The aides were, as ever, staring down at their iPhones, scrolling, tapping, mentally occupying a psychic space somewhere between where they were and the unspooling news cycle back in Washington.
“We’re off the cuff,” Pfeiffer said. No prepared speech.
“Off the cuff? Sounds good. Let’s go do it.”
Obama walked toward the stage and, as he was announced, he mouthed the words: “Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.”
Then it happened again: another heckler broke into Obama’s speech. A man in the balcony repeatedly shouted out, “Executive order!,” demanding that the President bypass Congress with more unilateral actions. Obama listened with odd indulgence. Finally, he said, “I’m going to actually pause on this issue, because a lot of people have been saying this lately on every problem, which is just, ‘Sign an executive order and we can pretty much do anything and basically nullify Congress.’ ”
Many in the crowd applauded their approval. Yes! Nullify it! Although Obama has infuriated the right with relatively modest executive orders on gun control and some stronger ones on climate change, he has issued the fewest of any modern President, except George H. W. Bush.
“Wait, wait, wait,” Obama said. “Before everybody starts clapping, that’s not how it works. We’ve got this Constitution, we’ve got this whole thing about separation of powers. So there is no shortcut to politics, and there’s no shortcut to democracy.” The applause was hardly ecstatic. Everyone knew what he meant. The promises in the second inaugural could be a long time coming.
IV—THE WELCOME TABLE
For every flight aboard Air Force One, there is a new name card at each seat; a catalogue of the Presidential Entertainment Library, with its hiply curated choices of movies and music; baskets of fruit and candy; a menu. Obama is generally a spare eater; the Air Force One menu seems designed for William Howard Taft. Breakfast one morning was “pumpkin spiced French toast drizzled with caramel syrup and a dollop of fresh whipped cream. Served with scrambled eggs and maple sausage links.” Plus juice, coffee, and, on the side, a “creamy vanilla yogurt layered with blackberries and cinnamon graham crackers.”
The most curious character on the plane was Marvin Nicholson, a tall, rangy man in his early forties who works as the President’s trip director and ubiquitous factotum. He is six feet eight. Nicholson is the guy who is always around, who carries the bag and the jacket, who squeezes Purell onto the Presidential palms after a rope line or a clutch; he is the one who has the pens, the briefing books, the Nicorette, the Sharpies, the Advil, the throat lozenges, the iPad, the iPod, the protein bars, the bottle of Black Forest Berry Honest Tea. He and the President toss a football around, they shoot baskets, they shoot the shit. In his twenties, Nicholson was living in Boston and working as a bartender and as a clerk in a windsurfing-equipment shop, where he met John Kerry. He moved to Nantucket and worked as a caddie. He carried the Senator’s clubs and Kerry invited him to come to D.C. Since taking the job with Obama, in 2009, Nicholson has played golf with the President well over a hundred times. The Speaker of the House has played with him once.
A fact like this can seem to chime with the sort of complaints you hear all the time about Obama, particularly along the Acela Corridor. He is said to be a reluctant politician: aloof, insular, diffident, arrogant, inert, unwilling to jolly his allies along the fairway and take a 9-iron to his enemies. He doesn’t know anyone in Congress. No one in the House or in the Senate, no one in foreign capitals fears him. He gives a great speech, but he doesn’t understand power. He is a poor executive. Doesn’t it seem as if he hates the job? And so on. This is the knowing talk on Wall Street, on K Street, on Capitol Hill, in green rooms—the “Morning Joe” consensus.
There are other ways to assess the political skills of a President who won two terms, as only seventeen of forty-four Presidents have, and did so as a black man, with an African father and a peculiar name, one consonant away from that of the world’s most notorious terrorist. From the start, however, the political operatives who opposed him did what they are paid to do—they drew a cartoon of him. “Even if you never met him, you know this guy,” Karl Rove said, in 2008. “He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a Martini and a cigarette, that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.” The less malign version is of a President who is bafflingly serene, as committed to his duties as a husband and father—six-thirty family dinner upstairs in the private residence is considered “sacrosanct,” aides say—as he is to his duties as Cajoler-in-Chief.
Still, Obama’s reluctance to break bread on a regular basis with his congressional allies is real, and a source of tribal mystification in Washington. “Politics was a strange career choice for Obama,” David Frum, a conservative columnist, told me. “Most politicians are not the kind of people you would choose to have as friends. Or they are the kind who, like John Edwards, seem to be one thing but then turn out to have a monster in the attic; the friendship is contingent on something you can’t see. Obama is exactly like all my friends. He would rather read a book than spend time with people he doesn’t know or like.” Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia who was elected to the Senate three years ago, said recently that Obama’s distance from members of Congress has hurt his ability to pass legislation. “When you don’t build those personal relationships,” Manchin told CNN, “it’s pretty easy for a person to say, ‘Well, let me think about it.’ ”
Harry Truman once called the White House “the great white jail,” but few Presidents seem to have felt as oppressed by Washington as Obama does. At one stop on the West Coast trip, Marta Kauffman, a Democratic bundler who was one of the creators of “Friends,” said that she asked him what had surprised him most when he first became President. “The bubble,” Obama said. He said he hoped that one day he might be able to take a walk in the park, drop by a bookstore, chat with people in a coffee shop. “After all this is done,” he said, “how can I find that again?”
“Have you considered a wig?” she asked.
“Maybe fake dreads,” her son added.
The President smiled. “I never thought of that,” he said.
Obama’s circle of intimates is limited; it has been since his days at Columbia and Harvard Law. In 2008, Obama called on John Podesta, who had worked extensively for Bill Clinton, to run his transition process. When Clinton took office, there was a huge list of people who needed to be taken care of with jobs; the “friends of Bill” is a wide network. After Podesta talked to Obama and realized how few favors had to be distributed, he told a colleague, “He travels light.”
Obama’s favorite company is a small ensemble of Chicago friends—Valerie Jarrett, Marty Nesbitt and his wife, Anita Blanchard, an obstetrician, and Eric and Cheryl Whitaker, prominent doctors on the South Side. During the first Presidential campaign, the Obamas took a vow of “no new friends.”
“There have been times where I’ve been constrained by the fact that I had two young daughters who I wanted to spend time with—and that I wasn’t in a position to work the social scene in Washington,” Obama told me. But, as Malia and Sasha have grown older, the Obamas have taken to hosting occasional off-the-record dinners in the residence upstairs at the White House. The guests ordinarily include a friendly political figure, a business leader, a journalist. Obama drinks a Martini or two (Rove was right about that), and he and the First Lady are welcoming, funny, and warm. The dinners start at six. At around ten-thirty at one dinner last spring, the guests assumed the evening was winding down. But when Obama was asked whether they should leave, he laughed and said, “Hey, don’t go! I’m a night owl! Have another drink.” The party went on past 1 A.M.
At the dinners with historians, Obama sometimes asks his guests to talk about their latest work. On one occasion, Doris Kearns Goodwin talked about what became “The Bully Pulpit,” which is a study, in part, of the way that Theodore Roosevelt deployed his relentlessly gregarious personality and his close relations with crusading journalists to political advantage. The portrait of T.R. muscling obstreperous foes on the issue of inequality—particularly the laissez-faire dinosaurs in his own party, the G.O.P.—couldn’t fail to summon a contrasting portrait.
The biographer Robert Caro has also been a guest. Caro’s ongoing volumes about Lyndon Johnson portray a President who used everything from the promise of appointment to bald-faced political threats to win passage of the legislative agenda that had languished under John Kennedy, including Medicare, a tax cut, and a civil-rights bill. Publicly, Johnson said of Kennedy, “I had to take the dead man’s program and turn it into a martyr’s cause.” Privately, he disdained Kennedy’s inability to get his program through Congress, cracking, according to Caro, that Kennedy’s men knew less about politics on the Hill “than an old maid does about fucking.” Senator Richard Russell, Jr., of Georgia, admitted that he and his Dixiecrat colleagues in the Senate could resist Kennedy “but not Lyndon”: “That man will twist your arm off at the shoulder and beat your head in with it.”
Obama delivers no such beatings. Last April, when, in the wake of the mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, eighty-three per cent of Americans declared themselves in favor of background checks for gun purchases, the Times ran a prominent article making the case that the Senate failed to follow the President’s lead at least partly because of his passivity as a tactical politician. It described how Mark Begich, a Democratic senator from Alaska, had asked for, and received, a crucial favor from the White House, but then, four weeks later, when Begich voted against the bill on background checks, he paid no price. No one shut down any highway lanes in Anchorage; no Presidential fury was felt in Juneau or the Brooks Range. The historian Robert Dallek, another guest at the President’s table, told the Times that Obama was “inclined to believe that sweet reason is what you need to use with people in high office.”
Yet Obama and his aides regard all such talk of breaking bread and breaking legs as wishful fantasy. They maintain that they could invite every Republican in Congress to play golf until the end of time, could deliver punishments with ruthless regularity—and never cut the Gordian knot of contemporary Washington. They have a point. An Alaska Democrat like Begich would never last in office had he voted with Obama. L.B.J., elected in a landslide victory in 1964, drew on whopping majorities in both houses of Congress. He could exploit ideological diversity within the parties and the lax regulations on earmarks and pork-barrel spending. “When he lost that historic majority, and the glow of that landslide victory faded, he had the same problems with Congress that most Presidents at one point or another have,” Obama told me. “I say that not to suggest that I’m a master wheeler-dealer but, rather, to suggest that there are some structural institutional realities to our political system that don’t have much to do with schmoozing.”
Dallek said, “Johnson could sit with Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader, kneecap to kneecap, drinking bourbon and branch water, and Dirksen would mention that there was a fine young man in his state who would be a fine judge, and the deal would be cut. Nowadays, the media would know in an instant and rightly yell ‘Corruption!’ ”
Caro finds the L.B.J.-B.H.O. comparison ludicrous. “Johnson was unique,” he said. “We have never had anyone like him, as a legislative genius. I’m working on his Presidency now. Wait till you see what he does to get Medicare, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act through. But is Obama a poor practitioner of power? I have a different opinion. No matter what the problems with the rollout of Obamacare, it’s a major advance in the history of social justice to provide access to health care for thirty-one million people.”
At the most recent dinner he attended at the White House, Caro had the distinct impression that Obama was cool to him, annoyed, perhaps, at the notion appearing in the press that his latest Johnson volume was an implicit rebuke to him. “As we were leaving, I said to Obama, ‘You know, my book wasn’t an unspoken attack on you, it’s a book about Lyndon Johnson,’ ” Caro recalled. L.B.J. was, after all, also the President who made the catastrophic decision to deepen America’s involvement in the quagmire of Vietnam. “Obama seems interested in winding down our foreign wars,” Caro said approvingly.
When Obama does ask Republicans to a social occasion, he is sometimes rebuffed. In the fall of 2012, he organized a screening at the White House of Steven Spielberg’s film “Lincoln.” Spielberg, the cast, and the Democratic leadership found the time to come. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and three other Republicans declined their invitations, pleading the press of congressional business. In the current climate, a Republican, especially one facing challenges at home from the right, risks more than he gains by socializing or doing business with Obama. Boehner may be prepared to compromise on certain issues, but it looks better for him if he is seen to be making a deal with Harry Reid, in the Senate, than with Barack Obama. Obama’s people say that the President’s attitude is, Fine, so long as we get there. Help me to help you.
When I asked Obama if he had read or seen anything that fully captured the experience of being in his office, he laughed, as if to say, You just have no idea. “The truth is, in popular culture the President is usually a side character and a lot of times is pretty dull,” he said. “If it’s a paranoid conspiracy-theory movie, then there’s an evil aide who is carrying something out. If it’s a good President, then he is all-wise and all-knowing”—like the characters played by Martin Sheen in “The West Wing,” and Michael Douglas in “The American President.” Obama says that he is neither. “I’ll tell you that watching ‘Lincoln’ was interesting, in part because you watched what obviously was a fictionalized account of the President I most admire, and there was such a gap between him and me that it made you want to be better.” He spoke about envying Lincoln’s “capacity to speak to and move the country without simplifying, and at the most fundamental of levels.” But what struck him most, he said, was precisely what his critics think he most avoids—“the messiness of getting something done.”
He went on, “The real politics resonated with me, because I have yet to see something that we’ve done, or any President has done, that was really important and good, that did not involve some mess and some strong-arming and some shading of how it was initially talked about to a particular member of the legislature who you needed a vote from. Because, if you’re doing big, hard things, then there is going to be some hair on it—there’s going to be some aspects of it that aren’t clean and neat and immediately elicit applause from everybody. And so the nature of not only politics but, I think, social change of any sort is that it doesn’t move in a straight line, and that those who are most successful typically are tacking like a sailor toward a particular direction but have to take into account winds and currents and occasionally the lack of any wind, so that you’re just sitting there for a while, and sometimes you’re being blown all over the place.”
The politician sensitive to winds and currents was visible in Obama’s coy talk of his “evolving” position on gay marriage. Obama conceded in one of our later conversations only that it’s “fair to say that I may have come to that realization slightly before I actually made the announcement” favoring gay marriage, in May of 2012. “But this was not a situation where I kind of did a wink and a nod and a hundred-and-eighty-degree turn.” The turn may not have been a sudden one-eighty; to say that your views are “evolving,” though, is to say there is a position that you consider to be more advanced than the one you officially hold. And he held the “evolved” position in 1996, when, as a candidate for the Illinois state senate, he filled out a questionnaire from Outlines, a local gay and lesbian newspaper, saying, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages.”
When I asked Obama about another area of shifting public opinion—the legalization of marijuana—he seemed even less eager to evolve with any dispatch and get in front of the issue. “As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”
Is it less dangerous? I asked.
Obama leaned back and let a moment go by. That’s one of his moves. When he is interviewed, particularly for print, he has the habit of slowing himself down, and the result is a spool of cautious lucidity. He speaks in paragraphs and with moments of revision. Sometimes he will stop in the middle of a sentence and say, “Scratch that,” or, “I think the grammar was all screwed up in that sentence, so let me start again.”
Less dangerous, he said, “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer. It’s not something I encourage, and I’ve told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.” What clearly does trouble him is the radically disproportionate arrests and incarcerations for marijuana among minorities. “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,” he said. “And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.” But, he said, “we should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing.” Accordingly, he said of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington that “it’s important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”
As is his habit, he nimbly argued the other side. “Having said all that, those who argue that legalizing marijuana is a panacea and it solves all these social problems I think are probably overstating the case. There is a lot of hair on that policy. And the experiment that’s going to be taking place in Colorado and Washington is going to be, I think, a challenge.” He noted the slippery-slope arguments that might arise. “I also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound. And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues. If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka, are we open to that? If somebody says, We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?”
V—MAGIC KINGDOMS
By Monday night, Obama was in Los Angeles, headed for Beverly Park, a gated community of private-equity barons, Saudi princes, and movie people. It was a night of fund-raisers—the first hosted by Magic Johnson, who led the Lakers to five N.B.A. championships, in the eighties. In the Beast, on the way to Johnson’s house, Obama told me, “Magic has become a good friend. I always tease him—I think he supported Hillary the first time around, in ’08.”
“He campaigned for her in Iowa!” Josh Earnest, a press spokesman, said, still sounding chagrined.
“Yeah, but we have developed a great relationship,” Obama said. “I wasn’t a Lakers fan. I was a Philadelphia 76ers fan, because I loved Doctor J.”—Julius Erving—“and then became a Jordan fan, because I moved to Chicago. But, in my mind, at least, what has made Magic heroic was not simply the joy of his playing.” Obama said that the way Johnson handled his H.I.V. diagnosis changed “how the culture thought about that—which, actually, I think, ultimately had an impact about how the culture thought about the gay community.” He also talked about Johnson’s business success as something that was “deeply admired” among African-Americans—“the notion that here’s somebody who would leverage fame and fortune in sports into a pretty remarkable business career.”
“Do you not see that often enough, by your lights?” I asked.
“I don’t,” Obama said.
The Obamas are able to speak to people of color in a way that none of their predecessors could. And the President is quick to bring into the public realm the fact that, for all his personal cool, he is a foursquare family man. He has plenty of hip-hop on his iPod, but he also worries about the moments of misogyny. Once, I mentioned to him that I knew that while Malia Obama, an aspiring filmmaker, was a fan of “Girls,” he and Michelle Obama were, at first, wary of the show.
“I’m at the very young end of the Baby Boom generation, which meant that I did not come of age in the sixties—took for granted certain freedoms, certain attitudes about gender, sexuality, equality for women, but didn’t feel as if I was having to rebel against something,” Obama said. “Precisely because I didn’t have a father in the home and moved around a lot as a kid and had a wonderfully loving mom and grandparents, but not a lot of structure growing up, I emerged on the other side of that with an appreciation for family and marriage and structure for the kids. I’m sure that’s part of why Michelle and her family held such appeal to me in the first place, because she did grow up with that kind of structure. And now, as parents, I don’t think we’re being particularly conservative—we’re actually not prudes. . . . But, as parents, what we have seen, both in our own family and among our friends, is that kids with structure have an easier time of it.”
He talked about a visit that he made last year to Hyde Park Academy, a public high school on Chicago’s South Side, where he met with a group of about twenty boys in a program called Becoming a Man. “They’re in this program because they’re fundamentally good kids who could tip in the wrong direction if they didn’t get some guidance and some structure,” Obama recalled. “We went around the room and started telling each other stories. And one of the young men asked me about me growing up, and I explained, You know what? I’m just like you guys. I didn’t have a dad. There were times where I was angry and wasn’t sure why I was angry. I engaged in a bunch of anti-social behavior. I did drugs. I got drunk. Didn’t take school seriously. The only difference between me and you is that I was in a more forgiving environment, and if I made a mistake I wasn’t going to get shot. And, even if I didn’t apply myself in school, I was at a good enough school that just through osmosis I’d have the opportunity to go to college.
“And, as I’m speaking, the kid next to me looks over and he says, ‘Are you talking about you?’ And there was a benefit for them hearing that, because when I then said, You guys have to take yourselves more seriously, or you need to have a backup plan in case you don’t end up being LeBron or Jay Z . . . they might listen. Now, that’s not a liberal or a conservative thing. There have been times where some thoughtful and sometimes not so thoughtful African-American commentators have gotten on both Michelle and me, suggesting that we are not addressing enough sort of institutional barriers and racism, and we’re engaging in sort of up-by-the-bootstraps, Booker T. Washington messages that let the larger society off the hook.” Obama thought that this reaction was sometimes knee-jerk. “I always tell people to go read some of Dr. King’s writings about the African-American community. For that matter, read Malcolm X. . . . There’s no contradiction to say that there are issues of personal responsibility that have to be addressed, while still acknowledging that some of the specific pathologies in the African-American community are a direct result of our history.”
The higher we went up into Beverly Hills, the grander the houses were. This was where the big donors lived. But Obama’s thoughts have been down in the city. The drama of racial inequality, in his mind, has come to presage a larger, transracial form of economic disparity, a deepening of the class divide. Indeed, if there is a theme for the remaining days of his term, it is inequality. In 2011, he went to Osawatomie, Kansas, the site of Theodore Roosevelt’s 1910 New Nationalism speech—a signal moment in the history of Progressivism—and declared inequality the “defining issue of our time.” He repeated the message at length, late last year, in Anacostia, one of the poorest neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., this time noting that the gap between the rich and the poor in America now resembled that in Argentina and Jamaica, rather than that in France, Germany, or Canada. American C.E.O.s once made, on average, thirty times as much as workers; now they make about two hundred and seventy times as much. The wealthy hire lobbyists; they try to secure their interests with campaign donations. Even as Obama travels for campaign alms and is as entangled in the funding system at least as much as any other politician, he insists that his commitment is to the middle class and the disadvantaged. Last summer, he received a letter from a single mother struggling to support herself and her daughter on a minimal income. She was drowning: “I need help. I can’t imagine being out in the streets with my daughter and if I don’t get some type of relief soon, I’m afraid that’s what may happen.” “Copy to Senior Advisers,” Obama wrote at the bottom of the letter. “This is the person we are working for.”
In one of our conversations, I asked him what he felt he must get done before leaving office. He was silent for a while and then broke into a pained grin. “You mean, now that the Web site is working?” Yes, after that. “It’s hard to anticipate events over the next three years,” he said. “If you had asked F.D.R. what he had to accomplish in 1937, he would have told you, ‘I’ve got to stabilize the economy and reduce the deficit.’ Turned out there were a few more things on his plate.” He went on, “I think we are fortunate at the moment that we do not face a crisis of the scale and scope that Lincoln or F.D.R. faced. So I think it’s unrealistic to suggest that I can narrow my focus the way those two Presidents did. But I can tell you that I will measure myself at the end of my Presidency in large part by whether I began the process of rebuilding the middle class and the ladders into the middle class, and reversing the trend toward economic bifurcation in this society.”
Obama met last summer with Robert Putnam, a Harvard political scientist who became famous for a book he wrote on social atomization, “Bowling Alone.” For the past several years, Putnam and some colleagues have been working on a book about the growing opportunity gap between rich and poor kids. Putnam, who led a Kennedy School seminar on civic engagement that Obama was in, sent the President a memo about his findings. More and more, Putnam found, the crucial issue is class, and he believes that a black President might have an easier time explaining this trend to the American people and setting an agenda to combat it. Other prominent politicians—including Hillary Clinton, Paul Ryan, and Jeb Bush—have also consulted Putnam. Putnam told me that, even if legislation combatting the widening class divide eludes Obama, “I am hoping he can be John the Baptist on this.” And Obama, for his part, seems eager to take on that evangelizing role.
“You have an economy,” Obama told me, “that is ruthlessly squeezing workers and imposing efficiencies that make our flat-screen TVs really cheap but also puts enormous downward pressure on wages and salaries. That’s making it more and more difficult not only for African-Americans or Latinos to get a foothold into the middle class but for everybody—large majorities of people—to get a foothold in the middle class or to feel secure there. You’ve got folks like Bob Putnam, who’s doing some really interesting studies indicating the degree to which some of those ‘pathologies’ that used to be attributed to the African-American community in particular—single-parent households, and drug abuse, and men dropping out of the labor force, and an underground economy—you’re now starting to see in larger numbers in white working-class communities as well, which would tend to vindicate what I think a lot of us always felt.”
VI—A NEW EQUILIBRIUM
After the event at Magic Johnson’s place—the highlight was a tour of an immense basement trophy room, where Johnson had installed a gleaming hardwood basketball floor and piped in the sound of crowds cheering and announcers declaring the glories of the Lakers—the Beast made its way to the compound that the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers built. Haim Saban, who made his billions as a self-described “cartoon schlepper,” was born in Egypt, came of age in Israel, and started his show-business career as the bass player in the Lions of Judah. His politics are not ambiguous. “I am a one-issue guy,” he once said, “and my issue is Israel.” His closest political relationship is with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and he was crushed when she lost to Obama, in 2008. Saban publicly expressed doubts about whether Obama was sufficiently ardent about Israel, but he has come around.
The main house on Saban’s property is less of an art museum than Jon Shirley’s, though it features a Warhol diptych of Golda Meir and Albert Einstein over the fireplace. The fund-raiser was held in back of the main house, under a tent. Addressing a hundred and twenty guests, and being peppered with questions about the Middle East, Obama trotted around all the usual bases—the hope for peace, the still strong alliance with Israel, the danger of “lone wolf” terror threats. But, while a man who funds the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution may have warmed to Obama, there is no question that, in certain professional foreign-policy circles, Obama is often regarded with mistrust. His Syria policy—with its dubious “red line” and threats to get rid of Bashar al-Assad; with John Kerry’s improvised press-conference gambit on chemical weapons—has inspired little confidence. Neither did the decision to accelerate troop levels in Afghanistan and, at the same time, schedule a withdrawal.
Obama came to power without foreign-policy experience; but he won the election, in part, by advocating a foreign-policy sensibility that was wary of American overreach. If George W. Bush’s foreign policy was largely a reaction to 9/11, Obama’s has been a reaction to the reaction. He withdrew American forces from Iraq. He went to Cairo in 2009, in an attempt to forge “a new beginning” between the United States and the Muslim world. American troops will come home from Afghanistan this year. As he promised in his first Presidential campaign—to the outraged protests of Hillary Clinton and John McCain alike—he has extended a hand to traditional enemies, from Iran to Cuba. And he has not hesitated in his public rhetoric to acknowledge, however subtly, the abuses, as well as the triumphs, of American power. He remembers going with his mother to live in Indonesia, in 1967—shortly after a military coup, engineered with American help, led to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people. This event, and the fact that so few Americans know much about it, made a lasting impression on Obama. He is convinced that an essential component of diplomacy is the public recognition of historical facts—not only the taking of American hostages in Iran, in 1979, but also the American role in the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, in 1953.
The right’s response has been to accuse Obama of conducting a foreign policy of apology. Last year, Republican senators on the Foreign Affairs Committee, including Marco Rubio, of Florida, demanded to know if Samantha Power, Obama’s nominee for U.N. Ambassador and the author of “A Problem from Hell,” a historical indictment of American passivity in the face of various genocides around the world, would ever “apologize” for the United States. (In a depressing Kabuki drama, Power seemed forced to prove her patriotic bona fides by insisting repeatedly that the U.S. was “the greatest country on earth” and that, no, she would “never apologize” for it.) Obama’s conservative critics, both at home and abroad, paint him as a President out to diminish American power. Josef Joffe, the hawkish editor of Die Zeit, the highbrow German weekly, told me, “There is certainly consistency and coherence in his attempt to retract from the troubles of the world, to get the U.S. out of harm’s way, in order to do ‘a little nation-building at home,’ as he has so often put it. If you want to be harsh about it, he wants to turn the U.S. into a very large medium power, into an XXL France or Germany.”
Obama’s “long game” on foreign policy calls for traditional categories of American power and ideology to be reordered. Ben Rhodes, the deputy national-security adviser for strategic communications, told me that Washington was “trapped in very stale narratives.”
“In the foreign-policy establishment, to be an idealist you have to be for military intervention,” Rhodes went on. “In the Democratic Party, these debates were defined in the nineties, and the idealists lined up for military intervention. For the President, Iraq was the defining issue, and now Syria is viewed through that lens, as was Libya—to be an idealist, you have to be a military interventionist. We spent a trillion dollars in Iraq and had troops there for a decade, and you can’t say it wielded positive influence. Just the opposite. We can’t seem to get out of these boxes.”
Obama may resist the idealism of a previous generation of interventionists, but his realism, if that’s what it is, diverges from the realism of Henry Kissinger or Brent Scowcroft. “It comes from the idea that change is organic and change comes to countries in its own way, modernization comes in its own way, rather than through liberation narratives coming from the West,” Fareed Zakaria, a writer on foreign policy whom Obama reads and consults, says. Anne-Marie Slaughter, who worked at the State Department as Hillary Clinton’s director of policy planning, says, “Obama has a real understanding of the limits of our power. It’s not that the United States is in decline; it’s that sometimes the world has problems without the tools to fix them.” Members of Obama’s foreign-policy circle say that when he is criticized for his reaction to situations like Iran’s Green Revolution, in 2009, or the last days of Hosni Mubarak’s regime, in 2011, he complains that people imagine him to have a “joystick” that allows him to manipulate precise outcomes.
Obama told me that what he needs isn’t any new grand strategy—“I don’t really even need George Kennan right now”—but, rather, the right strategic partners. “There are currents in history and you have to figure out how to move them in one direction or another,” Rhodes said. “You can’t necessarily determine the final destination. . . . The President subscribes less to a great-man theory of history and more to a great-movement theory of history—that change happens when people force it or circumstances do.” (Later, Obama told me, “I’m not sure Ben is right about that. I believe in both.”)
The President may scorn the joystick fantasy, but he does believe that his words—at microphones from Cairo to Yangon—can encourage positive change abroad, even if only in the long run. In Israel last March, he told university students that “political leaders will never take risks if the people do not push them to take some risks.” Obama, who has pressed Netanyahu to muster the political will to take risks on his own, thinks he can help “create a space”—that is the term around the White House—for forward movement on the Palestinian issue, whether he is around to see the result or not.
Administration officials are convinced that their efforts to toughen the sanctions on Iran caused tremendous economic pain and helped Hassan Rouhani win popular support in the Iranian Presidential elections last year. Although Rouhani is no liberal—he has revolutionary and religious credentials, which is why he was able to run—he was not Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s favored candidate. Khamenei is an opaque, cautious figure, Administration officials say, but he clearly acceded to Rouhani as he saw the political demands of the population shift.
The nuclear negotiations in Geneva, which were preceded by secret contacts with the Iranians in Oman and New York, were, from Obama’s side, based on a series of strategic calculations that, he acknowledges, may not work out. As the Administration sees it, an Iranian nuclear weapon would be a violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and a threat to the entire region; it could spark a nuclear arms race reaching Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey. (Israel has had nukes since 1967.) But the White House is prepared to accept a civilian nuclear capacity in Iran, with strict oversight, while the Israelis and the Gulf states regard any Iranian nuclear technology at all as unacceptable. Obama has told Netanyahu and Republican senators that the absolutist benchmark is not achievable. Members of Obama’s team believe that the leaders of Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states, who are now allied as never before, want the U.S. to be their proxy in a struggle not merely for de-nuclearization in Iran but for regime change—and that is not on the Administration’s agenda, except, perhaps, as a hope.
Republican and Democratic senators have expressed doubts about even the interim agreement with Iran, and have threatened to tighten sanctions still further. “Historically, there is hostility and suspicion toward Iran, not just among members of Congress but the American people,” Obama said, adding that “members of Congress are very attentive to what Israel says on its security issues.” He went on, “I don’t think a new sanctions bill will reach my desk during this period, but, if it did, I would veto it and expect it to be sustained.”
Ultimately, he envisages a new geopolitical equilibrium, one less turbulent than the current landscape of civil war, terror, and sectarian battle. “It would be profoundly in the interest of citizens throughout the region if Sunnis and Shias weren’t intent on killing each other,” he told me. “And although it would not solve the entire problem, if we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion—not funding terrorist organizations, not trying to stir up sectarian discontent in other countries, and not developing a nuclear weapon—you could see an equilibrium developing between Sunni, or predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran in which there’s competition, perhaps suspicion, but not an active or proxy warfare.
“With respect to Israel, the interests of Israel in stability and security are actually very closely aligned with the interests of the Sunni states.” As Saudi and Israeli diplomats berate Obama in unison, his reaction is, essentially, Use that. “What’s preventing them from entering into even an informal alliance with at least normalized diplomatic relations is not that their interests are profoundly in conflict but the Palestinian issue, as well as a long history of anti-Semitism that’s developed over the course of decades there, and anti-Arab sentiment that’s increased inside of Israel based on seeing buses being blown up,” Obama said. “If you can start unwinding some of that, that creates a new equilibrium. And so I think each individual piece of the puzzle is meant to paint a picture in which conflicts and competition still exist in the region but that it is contained, it is expressed in ways that don’t exact such an enormous toll on the countries involved, and that allow us to work with functioning states to prevent extremists from emerging there.”
During Obama’s performance under Saban’s tent, there was no talk of a Sunni-Israeli alignment, or of any failures of vision on Netanyahu’s part. Obama did allow himself to be testy about the criticism he has received over his handling of the carnage in Syria. “You’ll recall that that was the previous end of my Presidency, until it turned out that we are actually getting all the chemical weapons. And no one reports on that anymore.”
VII—HAMMERS AND PLIERS
Obama’s lowest moments in the Middle East have involved his handling of Syria. Last summer, when I visited Za’atari, the biggest Syrian refugee camp in Jordan, one displaced person after another expressed anger and dismay at American inaction. In a later conversation, I asked Obama if he was haunted by Syria, and, though the mask of his equipoise rarely slips, an indignant expression crossed his face. “I am haunted by what’s happened,” he said. “I am not haunted by my decision not to engage in another Middle Eastern war. It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which our involvement in Syria would have led to a better outcome, short of us being willing to undertake an effort in size and scope similar to what we did in Iraq. And when I hear people suggesting that somehow if we had just financed and armed the opposition earlier, that somehow Assad would be gone by now and we’d have a peaceful transition, it’s magical thinking.
“It’s not as if we didn’t discuss this extensively down in the Situation Room. It’s not as if we did not solicit—and continue to solicit—opinions from a wide range of folks. Very early in this process, I actually asked the C.I.A. to analyze examples of America financing and supplying arms to an insurgency in a country that actually worked out well. And they couldn’t come up with much. We have looked at this from every angle. And the truth is that the challenge there has been, and continues to be, that you have an authoritarian, brutal government who is willing to do anything to hang on to power, and you have an opposition that is disorganized, ill-equipped, ill-trained, and is self-divided. All of that is on top of some of the sectarian divisions. . . . And, in that environment, our best chance of seeing a decent outcome at this point is to work the state actors who have invested so much in keeping Assad in power—mainly the Iranians and the Russians—as well as working with those who have been financing the opposition to make sure that they’re not creating the kind of extremist force that we saw emerge out of Afghanistan when we were financing the mujahideen.”
At the core of Obama’s thinking is that American military involvement cannot be the primary instrument to achieve the new equilibrium that the region so desperately needs. And yet thoughts of a pacific equilibrium are far from anyone’s mind in the real, existing Middle East. In the 2012 campaign, Obama spoke not only of killing Osama bin Laden; he also said that Al Qaeda had been “decimated.” I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Falluja, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too.
“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.
“Let’s just keep in mind, Falluja is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology are a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”
He went on, “You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there. You have failed states that are just dysfunctional, and various warlords and thugs and criminals are trying to gain leverage or a foothold so that they can control resources, populations, territory. . . . And failed states, conflict, refugees, displacement—all that stuff has an impact on our long-term security. But how we approach those problems and the resources that we direct toward those problems is not going to be exactly the same as how we think about a transnational network of operatives who want to blow up the World Trade Center. We have to be able to distinguish between these problems analytically, so that we’re not using a pliers where we need a hammer, or we’re not using a battalion when what we should be doing is partnering with the local government to train their police force more effectively, improve their intelligence capacities.”
This wasn’t realism or idealism; it was something closer to policy particularism (this thing is different from that thing; Syria is not Libya; Iran is not North Korea). Yet Obama’s regular deployment of drones has been criticized as a one-size-fits-all recourse, in which the prospect of destroying an individual enemy too easily trumps broader strategic and diplomatic considerations, to say nothing of moral ones. A few weeks before Obama left Washington to scour the West Coast for money, he invited to the White House Malala Yousafzai, the remarkable Pakistani teen-ager who campaigned for women’s education and was shot in the head by the Taliban. Yousafzai thanked Obama for the material support that the U.S. government provided for education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and among Syrian refugees, but she also told him that drone strikes were “fuelling terrorism” and resentment in her country.
“I think any President should be troubled by any war or any kinetic action that leads to death,” Obama told me when I brought up Yousafzai’s remarks. “The way I’ve thought about this issue is, I have a solemn duty and responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s my most important obligation as President and Commander-in-Chief. And there are individuals and groups out there that are intent on killing Americans—killing American civilians, killing American children, blowing up American planes. That’s not speculation. It’s their explicit agenda.”
Obama said that, if terrorists can be captured and prosecuted, “that’s always my preference. If we can’t, I cannot stand by and do nothing. They operate in places where oftentimes we cannot reach them, or the countries are either unwilling or unable to capture them in partnership with us. And that then narrows my options: we can simply be on defense and try to harden our defense. But in this day and age that’s of limited—well, that’s insufficient. We can say to those countries, as my predecessor did, if you are harboring terrorists, we will hold you accountable—in which case, we could be fighting a lot of wars around the world. And, statistically, it is indisputable that the costs in terms of not only our men and women in uniform but also innocent civilians would be much higher. Or, where possible, we can take targeted strikes, understanding that anytime you take a military strike there are risks involved. What I’ve tried to do is to tighten the process so much and limit the risks of civilian casualties so much that we have the least fallout from those actions. But it’s not perfect.”
It is far from that. In December, an American drone flying above Al Bayda province, in Yemen, fired on what U.S. intelligence believed was a column of Al Qaeda fighters. The “column” was in fact a wedding party; twelve people were killed, and fifteen were seriously injured. Some of the victims, if not all, were civilians. This was no aberration. In Yemen and Pakistan, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, American drones have killed between some four hundred and a thousand civilians—a civilian-to-combatant ratio that could be as high as one to three. Obama has never made it clear how the vast populations outraged and perhaps radicalized by such remote-control mayhem might figure into his calculations about American security.
“Look, you wrestle with it,” Obama said. “And those who have questioned our drone policy are doing exactly what should be done in a democracy—asking some tough questions. The only time I get frustrated is when folks act like it’s not complicated and there aren’t some real tough decisions, and are sanctimonious, as if somehow these aren’t complicated questions. Listen, as I have often said to my national-security team, I didn’t run for office so that I could go around blowing things up.”
Obama told me that in all three of his main initiatives in the region—with Iran, with Israel and the Palestinians, with Syria—the odds of completing final treaties are less than fifty-fifty. “On the other hand,” he said, “in all three circumstances we may be able to push the boulder partway up the hill and maybe stabilize it so it doesn’t roll back on us. And all three are connected. I do believe that the region is going through rapid change and inexorable change. Some of it is demographics; some of it is technology; some of it is economics. And the old order, the old equilibrium, is no longer tenable. The question then becomes, What’s next?”
VIII—AMONG THE ALIENS
On his last day in Los Angeles, Obama romanced Hollywood, taking a helicopter to visit the DreamWorks studio, in Glendale. Jeffrey Katzenberg, Obama’s host and the head of DreamWorks Animation, is one of the Democrats’ most successful fund-raisers. But it is never a good idea for the White House to admit to any quid pro quo. When one of the pool reporters asked why the President was going to Katzenberg’s studio and not, say, Universal, a travelling spokesman replied, “DreamWorks obviously is a thriving business and is creating lots of jobs in Southern California. And the fact of the matter is Mr. Katzenberg’s support for the President’s policies has no bearing on our decision to visit there.”
That’s pretty rich. Katzenberg has been a supporter from the start of Obama’s national career, raising millions of dollars for him and for the Party’s Super PACs. Nor has he been hurt by his political associations. Joe Biden helped pave the way with Xi Jinping and other officials so that DreamWorks and other Hollywood companies could build studios in China. (In an awkward postscript, the S.E.C. reportedly began investigating, in 2012, whether DreamWorks, Twentieth Century Fox, and the Walt Disney Company paid bribes to Chinese officials, in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.)
A flock of military helicopters brought the Obama party to Glendale, and, after a short ride to DreamWorks Animation, Katzenberg greeted the President and gave him a tour. They stopped in a basement recording studio to watch a voice-over session for a new animated picture called “Home,” starring the voice of Steve Martin. Greeting Martin, Obama recalled that the last time they saw each other must have been when Martin played banjo with his band at the White House.
Martin nodded. “I always say the fact that I played banjo at the White House was the biggest thrill of his life.”
Katzenberg explained that “Home” was the story of the Boov, an alien race that has taken over the planet. Martin is the voice of Captain Smek, the leader of the Boov.
“Where did we go?” Obama asked Tim Johnson, the director. “Do they feed us?”
“Mostly ice cream.”
Katzenberg said that, unlike dramatic films with live actors, nineteen out of twenty of DreamWorks’ animated pictures succeed.
“My kids have aged out,” Obama said. “They used to be my excuse to watch them all.”
Katzenberg led Obama to a conference room, where the heads of most of the major movie and television studios were waiting. There would be touchy questions about business—particularly about the “North versus South” civil war in progress between the high-tech libertarians in Silicon Valley and the “content producers” in Los Angeles. The war was over intellectual-property rights, and Obama showed little desire to get in the middle of these two constituencies. If anything, he knows that Silicon Valley is ascendant, younger, more able to mobilize active voters, and he was not about to offer the studio heads his unqualified muscle.
Finally, the subject switched to global matters. Alan Horn, the chairman of Walt Disney Studios, raised his hand. “First,” he said, “I do recommend that you and your family see ‘Frozen,’ which is coming to a theatre near you. ”
Then he asked about climate change.
IX—LISTENING IN
On the flight back to Washington, Obama read and played spades with some aides to pass the time. (He and his former body man Reggie Love took a break to play spades at one point during the mission to kill Osama bin Laden.) After a while, one of the aides led me to the front cabin to talk with the President some more. The week before, Obama had given out the annual Presidential Medals of Freedom. One went to Benjamin C. Bradlee, the editor who built the Washington Post by joining the Times in publishing the Pentagon Papers, in 1971, and who stood behind Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as they began publishing the Watergate exposés that led to the fall of the Nixon Presidency. I asked Obama how he could reconcile such an award with his Administration’s aggressive leak investigations, which have ensnared journalists and sources, and its hostility to Edward Snowden’s exposure of the N.S.A.’s blanket surveillance of American and foreign communications.
After a long pause, Obama began to speak of how his first awareness of politics came when, as an eleven-year-old, he went on a cross-country bus trip with his mother and grandmother and, at the end of each day, watched the Watergate hearings on television. “I remember being fascinated by these figures and what was at stake, and the notion that even the President of the United States isn’t above the law,” he said. “And Sam Ervin with his eyebrows, and Inouye, this guy from Hawaii—it left a powerful impression on me. And so, as I got older, when I saw ‘All the President’s Men,’ that was the iconic vision of journalism telling truth to power, and making sure our democracy worked. And I still believe that. And so a lot of the tensions that have existed between my White House and the press are inherent in the institution. The press always wants more, and every White House, including ours, is trying to make sure that the things that we care most about are what’s being reported on, and that we’re not on any given day chasing after fifteen story lines.”
Then Obama insisted that what Snowden did was “not akin to Watergate or some scandal in which there were coverups involved.” The leaks, he said, had “put people at risk” but revealed nothing illegal. And though the leaks raised “legitimate policy questions” about N.S.A. operations, “the issue then is: Is the only way to do that by giving some twenty-nine-year-old free rein to basically dump a mountain of information, much of which is definitely legal, definitely necessary for national security, and should properly be classified?” In Obama’s view, “the benefit of the debate he generated was not worth the damage done, because there was another way of doing it.” Once again, it was the President as Professor-in-Chief, assessing all sides, and observing the tilt of the scales. (The day before his speech last week on reforming the N.S.A., he told me, “I do not have a yes/no answer on clemency for Edward Snowden. This is an active case, where charges have been brought.”)
The coverage of the leaks, Obama complained, paints “a picture of a rogue agency out there running around and breaking a whole bunch of laws and engaging in a ‘domestic spying program’ that isn’t accurate. But what that does is it synchs up with a public imagination that sees Big Brother looming everywhere.” The greater damage, in his view, was the way the leaks heightened suspicions among foreign leaders. Obama enjoyed a good relationship with Angela Merkel, but he admitted that it was undermined by reports alleging that the U.S. tapped her cell phone. This, he said, felt “like a breach of trust and I can’t argue with her being aggravated about that.”
But, he said, “there are European governments that we know spy on us, and there is a little bit of Claude Rains in ‘Casablanca’—shocked that gambling is going on.” He added, “Now, I will say that I automatically assume that there are a whole bunch of folks out there trying to spy on me, which is why I don’t have a phone. I do not send out anything on my BlackBerry that I don’t assume at some point will be on the front page of a newspaper, so it’s pretty boring reading for the most part.”
Obama admitted that the N.S.A. has had “too much leeway to do whatever it wanted or could.” But he didn’t feel “any ambivalence” about the decisions he has made. “I actually feel confident that the way the N.S.A. operates does not threaten the privacy and constitutional rights of Americans and that the laws that are in place are sound, and, because we’ve got three branches of government involved and a culture that has internalized that domestic spying is against the law, it actually works pretty well,” he said. “Over all, five years from now, when I’m a private citizen, I’m going to feel pretty confident that my government is not spying on me.”
Obama has three years left, but it’s not difficult to sense a politician with an acute sense of time, a politician devising ways to widen his legacy without the benefit of any support from Congress. The State of the Union speech next week will be a catalogue of things hoped for, a resumption of the second inaugural, with an added emphasis on the theme of inequality. But Obama knows that major legislation—with the possible exception of immigration—is unlikely. And so there is in him a certain degree of reduced ambition, a sense that even well before the commentariat starts calling him a lame duck he will spend much of his time setting an agenda that can be resolved only after he has retired to the life of a writer and post-President.
“One of the things that I’ve learned to appreciate more as President is you are essentially a relay swimmer in a river full of rapids, and that river is history,” he later told me. “You don’t start with a clean slate, and the things you start may not come to full fruition on your timetable. But you can move things forward. And sometimes the things that start small may turn out to be fairly significant. I suspect that Ronald Reagan, if you’d asked him, would not have considered the earned-income-tax-credit provision in tax reform to be at the top of his list of accomplishments. On the other hand, what the E.I.T.C. has done, starting with him, being added to by Clinton, being used by me during the Recovery Act, has probably kept more people out of poverty than a whole lot of other government programs that are currently in place.”
Johnson’s Great Society will be fifty years old in 2014, but no Republican wants a repeat of that scale of government ambition. Obama acknowledges this, saying, “The appetite for tax-and-transfer strategies, even among Democrats, much less among independents or Republicans, is probably somewhat limited, because people are seeing their incomes haven’t gone up, their wages haven’t gone up. It’s natural for them to think any new taxes may be going to somebody else, I’m not confident in terms of how it’s going to be spent, I’d much rather hang on to what I’ve got.” He will try to do things like set up partnerships with selected cities and citizens’ groups, sign some executive orders, but a “Marshall Plan for the inner city is not going to get through Congress anytime soon.”
Indeed, Obama is quick to show a measure of sympathy with the Reagan-era conservative analysis of government. “This is where sometimes progressives get frustrated with me,” he said, “because I actually think there was a legitimate critique of the welfare state getting bloated, and relying too much on command and control, top-down government programs to address it back in the seventies. It’s also why it’s ironic when I’m accused of being this raging socialist who wants to amass more and more power for their own government. . . . But I do think that some of the anti-government rhetoric, anti-tax rhetoric, anti-spending rhetoric that began before Reagan but fully flowered with the Reagan Presidency accelerated trends that were already existing, or at least robbed us of some tools to deal with the downsides of globalization and technology, and that with just some modest modification we could grow this economy faster and benefit more people and provide more opportunity.
“After we did all that, there would still be poverty and there would still be some inequality and there would still be a lot of work to do for the forty-fifth through fiftieth Presidents,” he went on, “but I’d like to give voice to an impression I think a lot of Americans have, which is it’s harder to make it now if you are just the average citizen who’s willing to work hard and has good values, and wasn’t born with huge advantages or having enjoyed extraordinary luck—that the ground is less secure under your feet.”
In the White House, advisers are resigned by now to the idea that some liberal voters, dismayed by a range of issues—drones, the N.S.A., the half measures of health care and financial reform—have turned away from Obama and to newer figures like Elizabeth Warren or Bill de Blasio. “Well, look, we live in a very fast-moving culture,” Obama said. “And, by definition, the President of the United States is overexposed, and it is natural, after six, seven years of me being on the national stage, that people start wanting to see . . .”
“Other flavors?”
“Yes,” he said. “ ‘Is there somebody else out there who can give me that spark of inspiration or excitement?’ I don’t spend too much time worrying about that. I think the things that are exciting people are the same things that excite me and excited me back then. I might have given fresh voice to them, but the values are essentially the same.”
X—WHAT TIME ALLOWS
Obama came home from Los Angeles in a dark, freezing downpour. The weather was too rotten even for Marine One. He hustled down the steps of Air Force One and ducked into his car.
A few weeks later, I was able to see him for a last conversation in the Oval Office. The Obamas had just had a long vacation in Hawaii—sun, golf, family, and not much else. The President was sitting behind his desk—the Resolute desk, a gift from Queen Victoria to Rutherford B. Hayes—and he was reading from a folder marked “Secret.” He closed it, walked across the room, and settled into an armchair near the fireplace. “I got some rest,” he said. “But time to get to work.”
Obama has every right to claim a long list of victories since he took office: ending two wars; an economic rescue, no matter how imperfect; strong Supreme Court nominations; a lack of major scandal; essential support for an epochal advance in the civil rights of gays and lesbians; more progressive executive orders on climate change, gun control, and the end of torture; and, yes, health-care reform. But, no matter what one’s politics, and however one weighs the arguments of his critics, both partisan and principled, one has to wonder about any President’s capacity to make these decisions amid a thousand uncertainties, so many of which are matters of life and death, survival and extinction.
“I have strengths and I have weaknesses, like every President, like every person,” Obama said. “I do think one of my strengths is temperament. I am comfortable with complexity, and I think I’m pretty good at keeping my moral compass while recognizing that I am a product of original sin. And every morning and every night I’m taking measure of my actions against the options and possibilities available to me, understanding that there are going to be mistakes that I make and my team makes and that America makes; understanding that there are going to be limits to the good we can do and the bad that we can prevent, and that there’s going to be tragedy out there and, by occupying this office, I am part of that tragedy occasionally, but that if I am doing my very best and basing my decisions on the core values and ideals that I was brought up with and that I think are pretty consistent with those of most Americans, that at the end of the day things will be better rather than worse.”
The cheering crowds and hecklers from the West Coast trip seemed far away now. In the preternaturally quiet office, you could hear, between every long pause that Obama took, the ticking of a grandfather clock just to his left.
“I think we are born into this world and inherit all the grudges and rivalries and hatreds and sins of the past,” he said. “But we also inherit the beauty and the joy and goodness of our forebears. And we’re on this planet a pretty short time, so that we cannot remake the world entirely during this little stretch that we have.” The long view again. “But I think our decisions matter,” he went on. “And I think America was very lucky that Abraham Lincoln was President when he was President. If he hadn’t been, the course of history would be very different. But I also think that, despite being the greatest President, in my mind, in our history, it took another hundred and fifty years before African-Americans had anything approaching formal equality, much less real equality. I think that doesn’t diminish Lincoln’s achievements, but it acknowledges that at the end of the day we’re part of a long-running story. We just try to get our paragraph right.”
A little while later, as we were leaving the Oval Office and walking under the colonnade, Obama said, “I just wanted to add one thing to that business about the great-man theory of history. The President of the United States cannot remake our society, and that’s probably a good thing.” He paused yet again, always self-editing. “Not ‘probably,’ ” he said. “It’s definitely a good thing.” ♦ ||||| So the president's State of the Union address is Tuesday night, and it's always such a promising moment, a chance to wake everyone up and say "This I believe" and "Here we stand." The networks are focused and alert, waiting to be filled with a president's excellence and depth. It's a chance for the American president to say whatever the storm, however high the seas, the union stands "rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed, one and indivisible." That's how Stephen Vincent Benet had Daniel Webster put it, in a play.
In a State of the Union a president tries to put his stamp on things. Here we are, here's where we're going, all roads lead forward. We can face whatever test, meet whatever challenge, united in the desire that we be the greatest nation in the history of man . . .
What great moments this tradition has given us. JFK's father thought his son's first State of the Union was better than his Inaugural Address. It had a warmth. "Mr. Speaker . . . it is a pleasure to return from whence I came. You are among my oldest friends in Washington—and this House is my oldest home." Friends, home—another era. LBJ taking the reins in 1964: "Let this session of Congress be known as the session which did more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined." And you know, that's what it became. Nixon enjoyed dilating on history, and was interesting when he did.
Reagan dazzled, though he told his diary he never got used to it: "I've made a mil. speeches in every kind of place to every kind of audience. Somehow there's a thing about entering that chamber—goose bumps & a quiver." There was his speech after he'd recovered from being shot—brio and gallantry. And of course Lenny Skutnik. Just before Reagan's 1982 speech Mr. Skutnik, a government worker, saw Air Florida Flight 90 go into the Potomac. As others watched from the banks of the frozen river, Mr. Skutnik threw off his coat, dived in and swam like a golden retriever to save passengers. The night of the speech he was up there in the gallery next to the first lady, and when Reagan pointed him out the chamber exploded. This nice, quiet man who'd gone uncelebrated all his professional life, and then one day circumstances came together and he showed that beneath the bureaucrat's clothing was the beating heart of a hero.
***
Well. History still beckons, waiting to be made. The great unstated question of today: Can America come back, reclaim her old spirit, confidence and joy, can we make things again, build them, grow, create, push out into the new?
And here I think: Oh dear.
Because when I imagine Barack Obama's State of the Union, I see a handsome, dignified man standing at the podium and behind him Joe Biden, sleeping. And next to him John Boehner, snoring. And arrayed before the president the members, napping.
No one's really listening to the president now. He has been for five years a nonstop windup talk machine. Most of it has been facile, bland, the same rounded words and rounded sentiments, the same soft accusations and excuses. I see him enjoying the sound of his voice as the network newsman leans forward eagerly, intently, nodding at the pearls, enacting interest, for this is the president and he is the anchorman and surely something important is being said with two such important men engaged.
But nothing interesting was being said! Looking back on this presidency, it has from the beginning been a 17,000 word New Yorker piece in which, calmly, sonorously, with his lovely intelligent voice, the president says nothing, or little that is helpful, insightful or believable. "I'm not a particularly ideological person." "It's hard to anticipate events over the next three years." "I don't really even need George Kennan right now." "I am comfortable with complexity." "Our capacity to do some good . . . is unsurpassed, even if nobody is paying attention."
Nobody is!
He gave a speech on the National Security Agency, that bitterly contested issue, the other day. Pew Research found half of those polled didn't notice. National Journal's Dustin Volz wrote that Americans greeted the speech with "collective indifference and broad skepticism." Of the 1 in 10 who'd followed it, more than 70% doubted his proposals would help protect privacy.
The bigger problem is that the president stands up there Tuesday night with ObamaCare not a hazy promise but a fact. People now know it was badly thought, badly written and disastrously executed. It was supposed to make life better by expanding coverage. It has made it worse, by throwing people off coverage. And—as we all know now but did not last year—the program was passed only with the aid of a giant lie. Now everyone knows if you liked your plan, your doctor, your deductible, you can't keep them.
When the central domestic fact of your presidency was a fraud, people won't listen to you anymore.
The poor speechwriters. They are always just a little more in touch with public sentiment than a president can be—they get to move around in the world, they know what people are saying. They have to imitate the optimism of the speeches of yore, they have to rouse. They are the ones who know what a heavy freaking lift it is, what an impossible chore. And they have to do it with idiots in the staffing process scrawling on the margins of the draft: "More applause lines!" The speechwriters know the answer is fewer applause lines, more thought, more humility and candor. Americans aren't impressed anymore by congressmen taking to their feet and cheering. They look as if they have electric buzzers on their butts that shoot them into the air when the applause line comes. "Now I have to get up and enact enthusiasm" is what they look like they're thinking. While the other party thinks "Now we have to get up too, because what he said was anodyne and patriotic and we can't not stand up for that." And they applaud, diffidently, because they don't want the folks back home—the few who are watching—to say they looked a little too enthusiastic about the guy who just cost them their insurance.
They are all enacting. They are all replicating. They're all imitating the past.
You know when we will know America is starting to come back? When some day the sergeant at arms bellows: "Mr. Speaker, the president of the United States" and the camera shows a bubble of suits and one person emerges from the pack and walks into the chamber and you're watching at home and you find yourself—against everything you know, against all the accumulated knowledge of the past—interested. It'll take you aback when you realize you're interested in what he'll say! And the members won't just be enacting, they'll be leaning forward to hear.
And the president will speak, and what he says will be pertinent to the problems of the United States of America. And thoughtful. And he'll offer ideas, and you'll think: "Hey, that sounds right."
That is when you'll know America just might come back.
Until then, as John Dickerson just put it: Barack Obama, Inaction Figure.
Zzzzzzz. ||||| There have always been two not entirely consistent elements of Barack Obama’s powerful political appeal: his aspirational ambition and his personal sense of complexity and limits.
The aspirational — the promise of transcending our national divisions, resetting our relations with Russia and the Muslim world, slowing the rise of the oceans and healing the planet — is behind us. In a recent, remarkable interview with David Remnick of the New Yorker, Obama admits as much. Assuming the role of political commentator, the president talks of being overexposed “after six, seven years of me being on the national stage” and asks, “Is there somebody else out there who can give [people] that spark of inspiration or excitement?” Perhaps someone else is the change we have been waiting for.
Michael Gerson is a nationally syndicated columnist who appears twice weekly in The Post. View Archive
But it is exactly this objectivity — this ability to emotionally distance himself from, well, himself — that impresses many journalists and commentators. Remnick calls it the “archetypal Obama habit of mind and politics, the calm, professorial immersion in complexity.” Like many before him, Remnick is impressed with Obama’s “philosophical ambivalences” and his ability to “nimbly” argue the other side of debates.
Obama seems impressed with these traits as well. In the course of the interview, he states: “I’m not a purist.” And: “I’m pretty pragmatic.” And: “I’m not a particularly ideological person.” And: “I do think one of my strengths is temperament. I am comfortable with complexity.” On marijuana legalization, Obama convincingly argues for every possible side of the issue. On parenting, he favors both open-mindedness and structure. On federalism, he sees virtues and drawbacks. On pro football, he is a big fan but would not allow his son to play. Every question is an opportunity for a seminar.
I have to admit — like many people in the business of producing and distributing symbolic knowledge — that I love seminars. Writers, commentators, journalists and historians have often chosen their profession because they never wanted their late-night dorm room discussions to end. Those who write about politics have a natural affinity for Obama’s mode of discourse. This is not so much an ideological bias — though that can play a part — as a kinship of intellectual approach and style. Just as Middle America found Richard Nixon to be “one of us,” America’s knowledge class knows that Obama is very much like them.
1 of 8 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × What Obama didn’t know View Photos The many controversies that the White House says the president was kept in the dark about. Caption The many controversies that the White House says the president was kept in the dark about. Health-care insurance cancellations
In fact, that wasn’t the case. Thousands who had bought insurance have been receiving cancellations notices from insurers. The president said he wasn’t aware his promise before the rollout would result in cancellations, and Obama had repeatedly stated that, although new health-care insurance would be available through the Affordable Care Act, those willing to stay on their plan would be able to do so.In fact, that wasn’t the case. Thousands who had bought insurance have been receiving cancellations notices from insurers. The president said he wasn’t aware his promise before the rollout would result in cancellations, and has apologized for his assurances ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue.
Remnick’s portrait of Obama typically leaves out the less attractive side of the academic persona — the tendency to view opponents as rubes and knaves. Few presidents have more consistently or aggressively questioned the motives of their political rivals. None, to my knowledge, used an inaugural address the way Obama used his second — to accuse his opponents of mistaking “absolutism for principle” and treating “name-calling as reasoned debate,” and wanting the twilight years of seniors “spent in poverty” and ensuring that parents of disabled children have “nowhere to turn,” and reserving freedom “for the lucky.” Those outside the seminar aren’t treated quite as well.
But even judged on the terms of Remnick’s praise, Obama is in deep, second-term trouble. The president who embraces complexity is now besieged by complexity on every front. The U.S. health-care system has not responded as planned to the joystick manipulations of the Affordable Care Act. On the evidence of the article, Obama and his closest advisers are in denial about the structural failures of the program — the stingy coverage, narrow provider networks, high deductibles and adverse-selection spirals already underway in several states.
And complexity is not a sufficient word to describe the chaos in the Middle East. Here Remnick raises questions about the utility of ambivalence in Obama’s approach to Syria. In the article, the president recounts the careful, systematic study that preceded inaction, as more than 100,000 people died and U.S.-affiliated groups were crushed. “We have looked at this from every angle,” he insists.
In fact, at the outset of the struggle, Obama declared that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must go without having a plan to make him go. Then the Obama administration announced it would supply arms to the rebels, which never materialized on a serious scale. This is a case where disengagement has undermined national credibility and betrayed friends. Obama is likely to spend a portion of his post-presidency defending his studied inaction in the face of mass atrocities.
The largest question raised by the Remnick article goes unasked: Is the intellectual style that journalists find so amenable actually an effective governing strategy? The answer, it turns out, is complex.
Read more from Michael Gerson’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook . | A recent New Yorker interview with President Obama reinforces a familiar point: He prefers "complexity" over black-and-white simplicity and likes to argue both sides of a debate. Or, as Michael Gerson at the Washington Post sums up, "Every question is an opportunity for a seminar." Gerson admits that he, like others in the "knowledge class," loves a good seminar. He's just not sure that it translates into good governing. "Obama is in deep, second-term trouble," he writes, citing examples such as the "structural failures" of ObamaCare and his "inaction" on Syria, even after what Obama describes as "careful, systematic study" of the conflict. "The president who embraces complexity is now besieged by complexity on every front." As Obama himself suggests in the New Yorker piece, Americans might be getting a little burned out on his ways. He mentions "over-exposure" after several years in the national spotlight and says it's natural for people to wonder, "Is there somebody else out there who can give [people] that spark of inspiration or excitement?" At the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan thinks the nation has tuned out. "Nobody is really listening to the president anymore," she writes, detecting a decided lack of interest ahead of next week's State of the Union and going a wee bit further in her criticism of Obama than the president himself: "He has been for five years a nonstop wind-up talk machine." Click for Gerson's full column, and Noonan's. |
Over time, the Congress has established about 80 separate programs to provide cash and noncash assistance to low-income individuals and families. Means-tested programs are restricted to families or individuals who meet specified financial requirements and certain other eligibility criteria established for each program. The financial requirements restrict eligibility to families and individuals whose income falls below defined levels, and in some cases, whose assets—such as bank accounts and the value of automobiles—also fall below defined levels. Nonfinancial requirements restrict eligibility to specified categories of beneficiaries, such as pregnant women, children, or individuals with disabilities. Federal, state, and local governments expended a combined total of nearly $400 billion on the approximately 80 means-tested programs in fiscal year 1998. Medicaid accounted for 45 percent of the expenditures. Twenty- seven of the 80 programs, representing 97 percent of the total expenditures, had expenditures of over a billion dollars each (see table 1). Means-tested programs provide assistance in eight areas of need: (1) cash assistance; (2) medical benefits; (3) food and nutrition; (4) housing; (5) education; (6) other services, such as child care; (7) jobs and training; and (8) energy aid. Ten of the 11 programs on which our review focuses accounted for 74 percent of the total expenditures for means-tested federal programs in fiscal year 1998 (see table 2). Table 3 provides an overview of the populations targeted by these programs and the types of assistance that they provide. The 11 means-tested programs that we included in our review were enacted over time to serve various populations and achieve various objectives. For example, in 1937, the Public Housing program was created to provide adequate temporary shelter to families who could not afford housing; Medicaid, in 1965, to provide medical assistance for low-income families with children and aged, blind, and disabled individuals; and SCHIP, in 1997, to provide health insurance coverage to uninsured low- income children from families who do not qualify for Medicaid. In some cases, the unique financial rules that apply to a particular program may be related to the purpose of that program and reflect its goals or objectives. For other programs, this may not be the case and the differences in eligibility standards across programs may stem from decisions made at different times by different congressional committees or federal agencies. In addition to offering a wide variety of benefits and services, means- tested programs vary in the extent to which they guarantee that funds for services will be available. For some programs such as Food Stamps and SSI, federal funds are available to provide benefits to all eligible applicants. Other programs such as TANF and SCHIP have a fixed amount of federal funds available. Moreover, some of the programs require state and other nonfederal matching money (e.g., Medicaid and SCHIP), while others are fully funded with federal dollars (e.g., LIHEAP and WIC). An individual low-income family is likely to be eligible for and participate in several means-tested programs. For example, as shown in figure 1, families receiving TANF generally also receive Medicaid, food stamps, and school meals. Smaller percentages of these families receive assisted housing, WIC, and LIHEAP. The need for welfare simplification has been voiced recurrently over a period of many years. While this concept covers a broad range of potential objectives, a key aspect has been the need to simplify financial eligibility rules. Means-tested programs have been established over time to meet the needs of various target populations. However, policy experts and researchers have concluded that the complexity and variations in programs’ financial eligibility rules have had unanticipated but detrimental consequences for both program administration and family access to assistance. On the administrative side, they have argued that the financial eligibility rules have increased substantially the staff resources needed to determine eligibility and benefit levels, and thereby increased the costs of administering programs. With regard to families’ access to programs, they maintained that the rules have often resulted in confusing families about their eligibility for programs and contributed to the creation of a service delivery system with many separate entry points that is often difficult and burdensome for families to navigate. Numerous studies and reports since the late 1960s have called for the overhaul or repair of the nation’s assistance programs that serve low- income families and individuals. For example, a Presidential committee recommended in 1977 that a total effort to reform welfare was needed because of the inequities and administrative “chaos” created by a plethora of inconsistent and confusing programs. During the1980s, we issued several reports on welfare simplification. One of these reports surveyed the states to identify what they viewed as the major obstacles to their efforts to achieve service integration. Of the 25 obstacles identified, the one cited most frequently (42 states) was that different programs use different financial eligibility requirements. In 1991, the National Commission for Employment Policy recommended that agencies administering public assistance programs should develop a common framework for streamlining eligibility requirements, formulating standard definitions, and easing administrative and documentation requirements. In 1990, the Congress authorized the creation of the Welfare Simplification and Coordination Advisory Committee to examine four major assistance programs: Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, and housing assistance programs. The Congress mandated the committee to identify barriers to participation in assistance programs and the reasons for those barriers. In June 1993, the committee recommended that the numerous programs that currently serve needy families be replaced with a single family-focused, client-oriented, comprehensive program. Recognizing that it would take time to implement its primary recommendation, the Commission made 14 interim recommendations to the Congress, including the following: Form a work group of the chairs of the relevant congressional committees to ensure that all legislative and oversight activities involving public assistance programs are coordinated. Establish uniform rules and definitions to be used by all needs-based programs in making their eligibility determinations. Streamline the verification process. Permit the sharing of client information among agencies to streamline eligibility determination processes and reduce duplication of related activities. In 1995, the Institute for Educational Leadership, based on its examination of the executive and legislative structures that federal means-tested programs are built upon, urged the administration to create a Family Council. One of the stated goals of such a council was to have been proposing changes to eligibility requirements, definitions, financing and administrative requirements, data collection and reporting requirements, and performance standards that were inconsistent, incoherent, and confusing. Moreover, in a 1995 report to the Congress, we concluded, in part, that the inefficient welfare system is increasingly cumbersome for program administrators to manage and difficult for eligible clients to access. Just as the need for simplification of financial eligibility rules has been acknowledged, there has also been a general recognition that achieving substantial improvements in this area is exceptionally difficult. For example, implementing systematic changes to the federal rules for human service programs can be challenging because jurisdiction for these programs is spread among numerous congressional committees and federal agencies. Substantial variations exist in the financial eligibility rules across selected means-tested federal programs. The primary sources of these variations are generally at the federal level, although for several programs such as TANF and Medicaid states and localities have some flexibility in setting financial eligibility rules. Variations exist among the programs in the financial rules regarding the types and amounts of income limits. Differences also exist among these programs with regard to whose income is counted, what income is counted or excluded, and whether certain expenses—such as child care costs—are deducted in calculating income. In addition to income tests, programs impose different limits on the assets that an individual or family may hold in order to receive benefits. Asset tests are further complicated because of the differences in how the equity in vehicles is treated when determining assets. The first and most basic difference among programs is the variation in type of income limits used for determining program eligibility. Income limits for most of the 11 programs reviewed used a percentage of the federal poverty guideline or an area’s median income. For example, the School Meals program uses a percentage of the poverty guideline to set benefit eligibility while the housing programs use percentage of area median income to determine eligibility. The programs not only differed in the type of income limit but also in the actual level of income. For example, the maximum allowable gross monthly income for food stamps for a family of three is $1,585 nationwide, whereas, the maximum allowable gross monthly income for subsidized child care—which is based on state median income—is $4,494 in the state of Connecticut (the state with the highest median income). For all 11 programs except TANF, federal laws and regulations have set some income limit. The most common type of income limit used among these programs is some percentage multiple of the federal poverty guideline, updated annually in the Federal Register by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, the percentage of the guideline used varies among programs. (See table 4 for a comparison of the type of limits used among the 11 programs.) Programs also vary in setting the income limits that are used to determine eligibility. While some of the programs provide states with options in setting income limits others do not. For example, LIHEAP and WIC provide states the option of choosing between two types of income limits. In the case of TANF, states are given full discretion in how they establish eligibility, including choosing both the type and level for their income limit. For Medicaid, while the federal government requires that states provide Medicaid to individuals who fall into certain categories and whose income and resources fall below certain limits, states may, in some circumstances, set more generous income limits and create different categories so that additional individuals may receive coverage. In addition, in some instances, states are given options to set income limits by the federal statute or regulation. For example, while the law sets the maximum income limit for child care funds at 85 percent of a state’s median income, several states have set their limits far below the allowable federal limit. Whose income is counted and whether any exclusions or deductions are made can affect a family’s income eligibility for the different programs. In general, the programs varied in whose income is counted in determining eligibility. There is no single definition of “family” or “household” used by means-tested federal programs. Federal rules generally govern whose income should be used to determine eligibility. In some programs, the definition of the household unit reflects the program’s service focus, and in these instances the income of people with whom the applicant shares certain expenses are included in the calculation. The LIHEAP program, for example, defines household as members purchasing energy together. Similarly, the Food Stamp statute identifies the household as the income unit and defines a household as people who purchase food and prepare meals together. Certain programs provide states with some discretion in defining a family. For example, the SCHIP regulation identifies the family as the income unit but allows the states to decide how that should be defined. Regulations for the Low-rent Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs set forth some examples of families but allow public housing agencies to determine if any other group of persons qualify as an eligible family. Table 5 summarizes household unit definitions for each of the 11 programs. Programs also differ in how they treat earned income for the purposes of eligibility determination. Those programs that emphasize a transition to economic self-sufficiency sometimes treat earned income favorably for program eligibility purposes to provide an incentive for clients to continue to work. In TANF, for example, almost all states disregard some income; that is, they allow TANF recipients to earn a given amount of their earned income either as a percentage of earnings (between 20 and 50 percent), or a set dollar amount (between $90 and $250) or both, without any reduction in their benefits. In Medicaid, while some states have the same disregards used in TANF, other states have more generous disregards. See table 6 for the earned income disregards used by various programs. In calculating applicants’ income levels to determine eligibility, some programs also have provisions to deduct certain types of expenses. These deductions include allowances for certain medical, shelter, or child care expenses of applicants. In other programs, no deductions or exclusions may apply. Some states have the same child care deductions in their TANF and Medicaid programs. Housing Choice Voucher and Low-rent Public Housing programs share many but not all of the same rules and regulations. Both programs have a child care deduction for children under 13 and an adult dependent care deduction for expenses over 3 percent of a family’s income. Table 7 illustrates programs’ different handling of payments for child care as a deduction from income. While several programs have specific rules regarding assets and set limits on the amount of certain assets that clients can hold, most programs have no restrictions on assets at all. Assets are generally defined to include cash held in checking and savings accounts, individual retirement accounts, 401Ks, and other accounts that can be readily transferred into cash. Federal rules and regulations set assets limits for several programs, but states do have discretion in certain cases. Vehicle asset rules exist in some of the 11 programs and these rules vary, not only across programs, but across states as well. In some programs, a vehicle used to access work may be disregarded; in other programs, a certain portion of the value of the vehicle may be disregarded. For example, in the SSI program, the first $4,500 in current market value is excluded. If it is used for employment or daily activities, used to obtain medical treatment, or has been modified for use by or for transportation of a handicapped person, the vehicle’s value is completely excluded. The vehicle asset test for food stamps is set at $4,650. However, a recent change allows states to apply their TANF vehicle asset test for food stamp eligibility and benefit determination, as long it is at least as generous as the Food Stamp rule. For TANF, many states exclude the entire value of one vehicle; one state excludes the value of all vehicles, and one state has no asset test at all. In states that impose a vehicle asset test for TANF, three states (Louisiana, Oregon, and Wisconsin) allow up to $10,000 in equity value and one state (Wyoming) disregards up to $12,000 in trade-in value. Table 8 displays the general assets limits as well as the vehicle asset rules, if any. Variations in financial eligibility rules and the multiplicity of agencies that administer programs at the state and local level have contributed to the formation of administrative processes that involve substantial complexity and duplication of staff efforts. In spite of the variations in financial eligibility rules, the states we reviewed have established joint eligibility determination processes for certain programs. While the processes for determining eligibility were coordinated for selected programs, state and local staff reported that the variations and complexities of certain financial rules in these programs created considerable difficulties in determining eligibility and calculating benefit levels. With regard to the other programs in these states, eligibility is determined separately for each program. As a result, applicants must visit multiple offices and repeatedly provide much of the same information to apply for assistance from these other programs. While data generally are not available on the specific costs of determining eligibility and calculating benefit levels for the 11 programs we reviewed, evidence suggests that these costs are substantial. In all five states we visited, joint application processes have been established for some programs, ranging from three programs in Kentucky to six programs in Nebraska. These processes enable an applicant to complete a single application for multiple programs. A single caseworker can determine for which programs the client is eligible and then calculate benefit amounts. The caseworker uses one or more automated systems to perform these tasks and generally needs to input application information only once into the automated systems. As shown in table 9, all five states have joint eligibility determination processes for TANF, Food Stamps, and Medicaid. In Nebraska, applicants can complete a joint application for these three programs and Child Care, SCHIP, and LIHEAP. (How these states have used computer systems to establish joint application processes is discussed later in the report.) Even though the determination of eligibility in these programs has been coordinated, state and local officials told us that variations in these programs’ financial eligibility rules, as well as the sheer complexity of the rules in certain programs, create substantial difficulties or added work for caseworkers in determining eligibility and benefit levels. With regard to variations in rules, the aspects most commonly cited as troublesome for caseworkers include differences in rules about household units, income limits, countable and excludable income, and asset limits. For example, differences in the definition of a household unit affect eligibility decisions because family members are treated differently across programs. In the Food Stamp program, a household generally consists of all the persons who purchase food and prepare meals together. In TANF, the family is the household unit (which states define) but generally includes only dependent children, their siblings, and the parents or other caretaker relatives. Consequently, a family member may be a part of a household in one program, treated as a separate family in another program, and ineligible for benefits in another program. If caseworkers do not establish the correct household for a program, errors in eligibility or benefit levels can result. State and local officials believed that establishing a uniform definition of household unit would reduce both the work required of caseworkers and the possibility of errors. The problems encountered by caseworkers were attributed primarily to the complexity of the financial eligibility rules for certain programs, especially Food Stamps and Medicaid. State and local officials identified the following areas as especially difficult and error-prone in the Food Stamp program: (1) determining household composition, (2) determining whether the value of a household’s assets is less than the maximum allowable, and (3) calculating the amount of a household’s earned and unearned income and deductible expenses. For example, with regard to the last of these areas, Food Stamp rules require that net monthly income be calculated by allowing up to six possible deductions from gross monthly income. The six allowable deductions are a standard deduction, an earned income deduction, a dependent care deduction, a medical deduction, a child support deduction, and an excess shelter cost deduction. Errors in calculating any one of these complicated deductions has resulted in inaccurate eligibility determinations or food stamp benefit levels. Such errors can lead to overpayments or underpayments to clients, and delays in processing of applications and disbursement of benefits. Moreover, states with high error rates can receive federal sanctions or be required to take steps to improve program administration. Our prior work identified the complexity of Food Stamp eligibility rules as a problem and recommended that USDA develop and analyze options for simplifying the rules for determining eligibility and benefit levels. State officials also pointed to various complexities associated with determining eligibility for Medicaid. Unlike the TANF and Food Stamp programs, Medicaid eligibility encompasses many categories of individuals. Among the states we visited, the number of eligibility categories varied from approximately 30 in Nebraska to about 100 in California. The rules and methodologies used to determine eligibility vary for many of these categories. Medicaid eligibility rules often include different income thresholds for children of different ages in the same family, and different rules for determining the eligibility of parents. Consequently, multiple tests may be used in determining eligibility for each member of a family, resulting in different outcomes for members of the same family. State and local officials told us that because of the complex financial rules in Medicaid, caseworkers are often frustrated; it is also more difficult for caseworkers to learn their jobs and perform them well. While joint eligibility processes have been established for some programs in the states we reviewed, eligibility for other programs is generally determined separately. For example, as shown in table 10, public housing agencies administer housing programs and SSA administers SSI in each state. In addition, in general, health departments determine eligibility for WIC and SCHIP; school districts administer School Meals; and community- based organizations administer LIHEAP. In some instances, caseworkers from different programs have been co- located at one location such as a one-stop center, but eligibility for these programs continues to be determined separately. For example, in San Mateo County, California, caseworkers for the Human Services Agency determine eligibility for the Food Stamp, Medicaid, TANF, Child Care, Low-rent Public Housing, and the Housing Choice Voucher programs. While one caseworker can assist clients in applying for TANF, Medicaid, and Food Stamps, these clients must meet separately with different caseworkers to apply for any of the other programs. The separate eligibility processes in the states we reviewed involve a substantial duplication of administrative functions and impose demands on the time and resources of applicants. For example, a family in these states that wanted to apply for all 11 programs would need to complete anywhere from 6 to 8 applications and visit up to six offices. These applications require applicants to repeatedly provide much of the same information. Our analysis of the application forms in Utah showed that at least 90 percent of the information collected by the applications for each of the following programs—SCHIP, LIHEAP, WIC, and School Meals—was collected on the joint application for TANF, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and Child Care. In fact, no new information was obtained on the SCHIP and LIHEAP applications. These separate applications generally ask for similar information collected on the joint application, such as household composition, employment status, and earned and unearned income. The annual costs to the federal government for administering means- tested programs are significant and eligibility determination activities make up a substantial portion of these costs. The federal government provides funds to states and localities for administering most of the means-tested programs and the percentage of the administrative costs borne by the federal government varies by program. The programs vary in the types of activities included in the administrative cost category. For example, in some cases these activities include outreach to potential program participants and service providers, preparation of program plans and budgets, travel, and quality assurance. As shown in table 11, in fiscal year 1998, the estimated federal costs for program administration in the 11 programs totaled over $12.4 billion. This constitutes about 4 percent of total expenditures for benefits in these programs. Federal agencies generally do not require states to report the costs for specific activities related to eligibility determinations. While data are not generally available on the specific costs of determining eligibility and calculating benefit levels for all of the 11 programs we reviewed, evidence suggests that these costs are substantial. In the Food Stamp program, for example, federal costs for eligibility determinations are in excess of $1 billion annually and account for over half of overall administrative costs. Moreover, while the states we visited did not routinely collect data on the costs associated with determining eligibility, we obtained some information on these costs for certain programs in California. For one calendar quarter—the fourth-quarter of 2000—California was able to provide data on expenditures for eligibility determination activities: $183 million in staff costs for Medicaid eligibility determinations, $106 million for food stamps, and $71 million for TANF, according to state officials. These figures include both federal and state costs. Overall, federal, state, and local entities have made limited progress in simplifying or coordinating eligibility determination processes. Several of the states we visited realigned some of the financial rules, yet this approach has been used to a limited extent. Another approach is to take advantage of the capabilities of computer systems. The state and localities we reviewed used computer systems both to establish joint eligibility determination processes for some programs and in a few cases to share data across agencies to coordinate eligibility determination processes. However, state and local officials in all five states said that much more should be done to simplify the financial eligibility rules and eligibility determination processes across programs but cited various obstacles to achieving further progress. In some cases, states have used the flexibility allowed under federal law to simplify or realign their financial eligibility rules. This has occurred in at least three ways. First, some states have used options established in federal law to extend eligibility automatically for one program based on an applicant’s participation in another means-tested program—a provision referred to as “categorical eligibility.” Second, at least one state has attempted to use a federally established option to create a Simplified Food Stamp program that aligns the financial eligibility rules for Food Stamps and TANF. Third, the states we visited have used the flexibility allowed under TANF to change provisions of their TANF financial eligibility rules to realign them with those of other programs. Provisions allowing categorical eligibility have been implemented by states in several programs. For example, the 1972 amendments to the Social Security Act gave states the authority to make SSI recipients automatically eligible for Medicaid. States that use this authority pay SSA to incorporate Medicaid-required questions in the SSI application process and establish an automated linkage between the SSI and Medicaid programs. As a result, clients who are approved for SSI are automatically enrolled in Medicaid and are not required to apply for Medicaid benefits. As of February 2001, 32 states—including three states we visited (California, Delaware, and Kentucky)—and the District of Columbia have linked their Medicaid programs with SSI. Federal law also gives states the option of establishing categorical eligibility to LIHEAP applicants who are receiving SSI, TANF, or Food Stamps. However, according to one agency official, while one of the states we visited (Nebraska) uses this option, most states do not. Many of the potential beneficiaries of the LIHEAP program are elderly or others who are not using public assistance programs. To avoid the perception that LIHEAP is a public assistance program, states are required to offer LIHEAP services through an alternative approach; most of the states we visited used community-based organizations to administer the program. School districts may also use direct certification to enroll school-aged children into the School Meals program. Direct certification is a method of eligibility determination that does not require families to complete school meals applications. Instead, school officials use documentation obtained directly from the local or state human services agency that indicates that a household participates in TANF or Food Stamps as the basis for certifying students for free school meals. While all of the states we visited used direct certification as a means to identify and enroll children in the School Meals program, not all school districts or schools within the states used the process. According to a recent USDA study, approximately 35 percent of students approved for free meals are certified through direct certification. The Simplified Food Stamp Program, an option created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), was another effort to streamline program administration. The simplified program option was to be a vehicle for creating conformity between TANF and the Food Stamp program by merging the programs’ rules into a single set of requirements for individuals receiving both types of assistance. Specifically, the program allows states to establish eligibility and benefit levels on the basis of household size and income, work requirements, and other criteria established under TANF, food stamps, or a combination of both programs—as long as federal costs are not increased in doing so. As of February 2001, while several states had used some features of the Simplified Food Stamp program, only one state had attempted to implement a more extensive version of the program. In our January 1999 report, we found that the two most frequent reasons given by states for not implementing the simplified program were as follows: (1) it would result in increased caseworker burden and (2) the cost neutrality provision restricted the states’ options for simplifying the program. States have also sought to realign their financial eligibility rules by taking advantage of their flexibility under TANF. For example, Nebraska changed its TANF (1) assets limits to mirror those for Medicaid, (2) earned income disregards to mirror those for Food Stamps, and (3) client reporting requirements to mirror those for Food Stamps. A Nebraska state official told us that these changes resulted in simplifying the financial rules to ease eligibility determination processes for caseworkers and reduce complexities for clients being served. Delaware broadened eligibility for food stamps by creating categorical eligibility for food stamps through the TANF program. During the application process, clients are asked if they are interested in two specific TANF program components, pregnancy prevention and family planning services. Some clients who may have been determined financially ineligible for food stamps, but indicated an interest in either TANF service, received categorical eligibility for food stamps. However, in the near future, states will not have the authority to more broadly confer categorical eligibility to TANF clients. With recent changes in Food Stamp regulations, effective September 30, 2001, states will be restricted to conferring categorical eligibility to TANF clients with incomes at 200 percent of the federal poverty level or below. States have considerable flexibility to streamline eligibility processes in their Medicaid for children and SCHIP programs. According to a recent survey, many states have taken steps to streamline and simplify their child health coverage programs. These activities have been driven, to a large extent, by the emphasis on designing easy, family-friendly application systems for new SCHIP programs, coupled with the federal requirement to coordinate these new programs with Medicaid. The survey found that most states have taken steps to simplify the application process for child health coverage. For example, of the 32 states that implemented separate SCHIP programs, 28 states use joint applications for Medicaid and SCHIP. Moreover, 39 states and the District of Columbia have eliminated face-to-face interviews and 10 states allow self-declaration of income in both their Medicaid for children and SCHIP programs. In addition, most states have made efforts to expand income-eligibility for children and simplify eligibility rules. For example, between November 1998 and July 2000, the number of states that covered children under age 19 in families with income at or below 200 percent of FPL increased from 22 to 36. Finally, 41 states and the District of Columbia have dropped the asset test in both their Medicaid for children and SCHIP programs. States are increasingly relying on computer systems to establish joint processes for determining eligibility or to share data across agencies to facilitate the verification of data needed to determine client eligibility. However, in some cases states have encountered difficulties in expanding joint eligibility processes due to factors such as limitations in the abilities of caseworkers to master the eligibility rules for so many programs. The federal government has played a key role in facilitating the automation of means-tested programs. Three of the federal government’s major programs for needy families—TANF, Food Stamps, and Medicaid— have historically relied on state-run automated systems to help determine applicants’ eligibility and the amount of assistance each client should receive. In the past, the Congress authorized several agencies to reimburse states for a significant proportion of their total costs to develop and operate automated eligibility determination systems for these programs. For example, in 1980, the Congress authorized USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, which oversees the Food Stamp program, to reimburse states for 75 percent of their costs for planning, designing, developing, and installing automated eligibility systems and 50 percent of the costs to operate these systems. To obtain enhanced funding for AFDC automated systems, states had to meet the requirements for a Family Assistance Management Information System (FAMIS), a general system design developed by HHS to improve state administration of the AFDC program. Because eligibility for Medicaid and Food Stamps was linked to eligibility for AFDC, most of the AFDC systems also covered Medicaid and Food Stamps. While the federal government generally no longer provides for enhanced levels of matching funds for systems development, the federal government continues to be a major funder of new computer systems for human services. For example, Texas has budgeted more than $289 million over a 6-year period to develop a new automated system for its human services department that would support the determination of eligibility for approximately 50 programs. The federal share (obtained from HHS and USDA) is projected to be about 51 percent of the total amount. Some of the states we reviewed have developed computer systems that have enabled them to expand the number of programs for which eligibility can be jointly determined. For example, Nebraska developed the Nebraska-Family On-Line Client User System (N-FOCUS), which contains the eligibility rules for TANF, Food Stamps, Medicaid, SCHIP, and Child Care. A separate computer system is used to determine eligibility for LIHEAP. These computer systems enable a single worker to jointly determine eligibility and calculate benefit levels for all of these programs. However, since these computer systems are not completely interfaced, caseworkers must sometimes enter client information more than once. In Delaware, caseworkers use the Delaware Client Information System II (DCIS II) to determine eligibility and benefit levels for TANF, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and SCHIP. Caseworkers use a separate computer system to determine eligibility and benefit levels for Child Care. These computer systems enable a single caseworker to determine eligibility jointly for five programs. In contrast to Nebraska, the different computer systems in Delaware are interfaced, which allows caseworkers to switch between systems and transfer data from one system to another, thereby eliminating the need to re-enter the same information in multiple systems. While their computer systems have resulted in streamlining the eligibility determination processes for clients, no data were available to determine whether these initiatives had generated any administrative cost savings. In addition to supporting joint eligibility determination processes, computer systems are being used to share client data across certain agencies to obtain information needed for determining eligibility. For example, when families in Delaware apply for TANF cash assistance, they are informed on their applications that the state department of health and social services may contact other persons or organizations to obtain the proof necessary in determining eligibility and benefit levels. The department of health and social services has automated links to share client information with other state agencies, including the department of Labor, the Divisions of Public Health and Motor Vehicles, and the child support enforcement agency. While computer systems can facilitate efforts to coordinate eligibility determination processes, states encountered limitations in system capabilities. For example, Nebraska officials told us that because of the variations in programs and financial rules, “workarounds” had been developed to help caseworkers overcome some systems-related problems. Workarounds are instructions to staff for specific situations in which a worker has to intervene manually in the eligibility determination process. While Nebraska’s N-FOCUS system provided automated support for 26 programs and the policies and rules built into the system to support all these programs, slow processing times had resulted. In addition, caseworkers were frustrated because the system was inflexible and did not cover all possible client household situations, which sometimes resulted in inaccurate eligibility determinations. Later, when the N-FOCUS automated system was modified by reducing technical complexities, it resulted in quicker processing times of client data, more flexibility for caseworkers in using the automated system, and greater responsibilities for caseworkers to know their programs. Caseworkers told us that the changes were helpful improvements. Nonetheless, some caseworkers expressed concern that program complexities, high caseloads, and time constraints made it difficult to learn the eligibility rules with their varying criteria and financial rules. Through discussions with federal, state, and local officials, and a review of literature in the area, we identified a number of obstacles that hinder efforts to make further progress in streamlining or coordinating processes for determining eligibility. In general, these have been longstanding obstacles. Key obstacles to efforts to simplify or realign financial eligibility rules include program cost implications, restrictive federal laws and regulations, the need for collaboration of multiple executive branch agencies and legislative committees, and differences in goals and purposes of some federal programs. Program cost implications is a major obstacle to efforts to simplify or realign financial eligibility rules. Financial eligibility rules serve to target and limit benefits to those considered in need and also to ration federal and nonfederal dollars. Yet, modifying financial eligibility rules for purposes of simplifying them or making them more consistent across programs can result in changes to the number of people who are eligible for assistance or the benefit levels they receive. For example, if such rule changes have the effect of raising income eligibility limits, more people will be eligible for assistance and program costs will tend to increase. On the other hand, if such rule changes have the effect of lowering income eligibility levels, some people will no longer be eligible for assistance from certain programs. Among means-tested programs, pressures in recent years have generally been to increase coverage, such as by loosening financial eligibility standards. As we have seen, much of the variation in financial rules derives from federal statutes and regulations. For the 11 programs we reviewed, most program requirements were set in statute. Agency regulations also provide annual guidance such as income thresholds used to establish eligibility and benefit amounts. State officials believe that because of federal statutes and regulations they had very little flexibility in aligning financial eligibility rules across programs. Such alignment can involve standardizing various types of rules, including those pertaining to income limits, whose income is counted, what income is counted, and deductions from income. While states have aligned some financial rules to simplify their TANF, Food Stamp, and Medicaid rules, most of these changes were modest and officials were frustrated by federal barriers that prevented better aligning the financial rules across programs. For example, officials in two states told us that they believed the federally established income limits in the Food Stamp program (130 percent of federal poverty guidelines) were set too low. They explained that although their states had the flexibility to lower their TANF and Medicaid income limits to match the limit for food stamps, this option was not appealing because it would result in decreased participation in TANF and Medicaid. The division of legislative and executive responsibility, while allowing multiple points of access for members of Congress, interest groups, and the affected public, can be an obstacle to states’ ability to pursue system integration. Making systematic changes to programs’ financial eligibility rules can be very difficult, because it would generally require the collaborative efforts of multiple congressional committees (in the case of laws) or multiple federal agencies (in the case of regulations). Several reviews of the legislative and executive governance mechanisms that affect program direction at the federal level have been conducted in recent years. One study found that primary responsibility for most of the approximately 80 major programs that assist low-income families and individuals resides in 19 congressional committees and 33 subcommittees. For the 11 programs in our review, we identified 9 committees and 6 appropriations subcommittees with legislative responsibility for the programs. In addition, the 11 programs spanned 3 executive branch departments and 1 independent agency. The different purposes of the various means-tested programs and the lack of overarching goals also create a barrier to administrative streamlining. For example, state and local officials frequently cited the Food Stamp program rules as overly complex and rigid, with too much emphasis on quality control. The officials were concerned that quality control in the program focused, to a great extent, on detailed financial matters such as small amounts of overpayments and underpayments, timeliness of changes in income, and recalculation of benefit levels. The officials believe that while a focus on financial integrity through process and payment accuracy was important, too much attention on quality control has contributed to increased program complexities, decreased program participation, and high administrative costs. In comparison, the states receive block grants from the federal government to operate TANF programs and have significant autonomy in these programs. In the states we visited, officials told us that the flexibility in TANF provided them the opportunity to develop more effective cash assistance programs than existed prior to welfare reform. The officials believed that having greater flexibility in other means-tested programs such as Food Stamps would further their efforts to streamline eligibility determination processes. Over a period of more than 60 years, a large number of means-tested programs have been established to meet diverse goals and serve the needs of different populations of low-income families and individuals. However, when viewed from a service provider’s or client’s perspective, the existing processes for determining eligibility and calculating benefit levels in the 11 means-tested programs we reviewed are often cumbersome to administer and burdensome for families who apply for assistance. The variations and complexity of these programs’ financial eligibility rules, as well as the fact that numerous agencies administer the programs, have contributed to the formation of these cumbersome processes. There has been a long history of calls for the need to simplify eligibility rules and processes for means-tested programs. While there have been some efforts to make such improvements, little progress has been achieved overall. This limited progress reflects the broad scope and complex intricacy of the obstacles that confront any efforts to make large-scale improvements in this area, including the difficulty of grappling with the cost implications of changing financial eligibility rules. For example, the Simplified Food Stamp program was designed to allow states to align the TANF and Food Stamp programs’ rules but few states have implemented this option. Most states have not used the Simplified Food Stamp program, in large part, because they viewed the program’s requirement for cost neutrality within any fiscal year as being too restrictive. Many federal, state, and local officials recognize that additional efforts to simplify or coordinate eligibility determination processes are needed. However, a lack of information on the likely consequences of such efforts hinders further steps to improve the administration of means-tested federal programs. While many of these officials believe that administrative cost savings could be achieved from improved coordination or simplification, data are not available to evaluate the potential savings from such actions. Given the paucity of data on the costs of determining eligibility and calculating benefit levels in the existing system, it is difficult to quantify the costs of the variations and complexity of financial eligibility rules. Yet these costs appear to be substantial and even increases in efficiencies of the processes of 10 to 20 percent could potentially save billions of dollars. Moreover, the simplification of eligibility rules and processes offers the prospect of reducing burdens on caseworkers and applicants. On the other hand, simplifying financial eligibility rules could potentially result in increased program costs. To facilitate further progress in this area, information is needed about the effects of changes in financial eligibility rules and procedures on program and administrative costs, and access to programs by families and individuals. This information could be instrumental in designing a system for administering means-tested programs that is less costly to taxpayers, less onerous for workers, less frustrating for applicants, and that potentially reduces improper payments in federal programs. The Congress should consider authorizing state and local demonstration projects designed to simplify and coordinate eligibility determination processes for means-tested federal programs. Such projects would provide states and localities with opportunities to test changes designed to simplify or align the financial eligibility rules for programs, increase the number of programs for which eligibility can be determined jointly, and expand data sharing across agencies to facilitate eligibility determinations. Once authorized, states and/or localities could submit proposals for demonstration projects and relevant federal agencies working in a coordinated manner could review them, suggest modifications as needed, and make final approval decisions. Demonstration projects would include waivers of federal statutes and regulations as needed and deemed appropriate. While our review covered 11 means-tested federal programs, we are not suggesting that the demonstration projects must include all of these programs or exclude others. Consistent with a focus on citizen- centered government, states should be given the opportunity to try various approaches aimed at streamlining or simplifying eligibility determination processes that consider all feasible programs. Projects must be given sufficient time to be fully implemented and must include an evaluation component. Cost neutrality would be most desirable for federal approval of these projects. However, projects should not be rejected solely because they are unable to guarantee cost neutrality over the short run. It would be expected that, over a period of time, state and federal efforts to streamline eligibility determination processes would create administrative cost savings that could help offset any increased program costs. The Office of Management and Budget and the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development provided written comments on a draft of this report. These comments are presented and evaluated below and are reprinted in appendix II through appendix V. The agencies generally agreed with the report’s findings. The draft version of the report contained a recommendation to the Director of OMB to develop legislative proposals that would authorize state and local demonstration projects designed to simplify and coordinate eligibility determination processes for means- tested federal programs. In its comments, OMB indicated its support for program simplification but did not indicate that it would implement the recommendation. OMB agreed with our assessment of the longstanding obstacles to program simplification. However, OMB said that legislative authority for demonstration projects may not be necessary for states to pursue many simplification strategies because many programs, such as Food Stamps, already have significant waiver authority, and many states have not fully utilized the flexibility they have in programs such as TANF, Medicaid, and SCHIP. We agree that states have substantial flexibility in some programs; our report provides examples of how some states have used this flexibility to coordinate financial rules or processes. Our proposal for the authorization of demonstration projects is motivated primarily by the need to obtain more detailed and systematic information about the effects of various simplification strategies on key factors such as program and administrative costs. These demonstration projects would provide states with whatever additional waiver authority is needed and appropriate. OMB acknowledged that demonstration projects could be helpful in achieving sweeping standardization across programs, particularly if current waiver authority in certain programs, such as HUD’s rental assistance programs, is not designed to achieve such sweeping standardization. OMB added that program reauthorization also presents an opportunity to propose changes to program rules that may more immediately and effectively address simplification. We agree that program reauthorization presents a good opportunity to address simplification, especially on a program-specific basis. However, demonstration projects would provide the ability to make comprehensive changes in a multiplicity of programs to coordinate eligibility rules and processes, and to obtain information about the effects of these changes. OMB also expressed concern about the implications of program simplification on program costs and argued that simplification should not be a license to expand eligibility and increase spending beyond current levels. OMB questioned whether we potentially overestimate the administrative cost savings that would result from program simplification, which may underestimate the significance of program cost implications. We agree that there is a lot of uncertainty about the cost implications of program simplification. We believe that demonstration projects could provide useful empirical evidence about the potential for administrative cost savings and the ability to limit program cost increases. Finally, OMB maintained that if demonstration projects are authorized, the review of state proposals for such projects would most appropriately be lead by a federal agency such as HHS, in collaboration with other federal agencies, rather than by OMB as we had originally recommended. We believe that whatever federal agency or agencies were to be designated as the lead, the critical factor would be to establish a coordinated federal review process that facilitates efficient state and local interactions with the federal government. USDA commented that the report has made a noteworthy effort to compare the key variations in financial eligibility rules among the eleven federal programs reviewed. With regard to food stamps, USDA stated that making legislative changes during reauthorization would be a better approach to streamlining and simplifying Food Stamp program rules than mounting a series of demonstration projects. We agree that reauthorization presents an opportunity for simplifying Food Stamp rules and have recommended this in an earlier GAO report. USDA also provided additional information about the use of direct certification in the School Meals program and categorical eligibility for WIC, which we added to the report. HHS said in its comments that this is a very important report that verifies the lack of standardization and complexity of applying for means-tested programs. However, HHS added that in recommending demonstration projects, the report does not offer any suggestions on how to build upon or make this new initiative more productive than past efforts. We agree that the report does not address in a detailed and thorough manner the issues regarding how such demonstration projects should be designed and implemented. We believe that these issues would be best addressed with input from diverse stakeholders, especially the various federal and state agencies that have longstanding experience administering and overseeing these means-tested programs. HHS noted that while considerable progress has been made in developing joint application processes, there has recently been a recognition that this model has limitations. HHS explained that increasing numbers of Medicaid-eligible persons come from working families not eligible for other programs. HHS added that it is important to strive to effectively reach and serve both this population and the population eligible for multiple programs, so it continues to work on both joint and single- purpose application processes. We agree with HHS that both types of application processes have appropriate uses. HHS also said that the report did not acknowledge sufficiently the progress in simplifying eligibility determination that has been made in SCHIP. In response, we added a section to provide information on state efforts to streamline and simplify administrative processes for SCHIP and Medicaid programs for children. In addition, HHS questioned whether our review of Medicaid, which focused on TANF-related Medicaid groups and policies, should also have included SSI-related groups and policies. Because the primary focus of our review was on means-tested programs commonly used by low-income families and children, the report does not include a discussion of SSI- related groups and policies. Finally, HHS commented that states have significant flexibility to expand and simplify eligibility for Medicaid to coordinate with other programs that serve low-income families. In its comments, HUD agreed that simplification of the financial eligibility and benefit rules for means-tested federal programs is needed and said that the department is interested in exploring participation in a demonstration program in this area. HUD also noted that it has an effort underway—the Rental Housing Income Integrity Initiative—that has a major goal of simplifying cumbersome income and rent policies in public and assisted housing programs. HUD also provided estimates of administrative costs for housing assistance programs and the percentage of TANF recipients receiving housing assistance; we revised the report to incorporate these estimates. We also received technical comments on a draft of this report from the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, the Social Security Administration, and three of the five states discussed in the report—Delaware, Nebraska, and Utah—and we incorporated these comments where appropriate. As agreed to with your staff, unless you publicly release its contents earlier, we will make no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Subcommittee on Human Resources, House Committee on Ways and Means; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the Secretary of Health and Human Services; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; the Acting Commissioner of Social Security; other interested congressional committees; and interested parties. Copies will be made available to others upon request. The report is also available on GAO’s home page at http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you have any questions about this report. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix VI. In conducting our review, we obtained and analyzed information from a variety of federal, state, and local sources. At the federal level, we interviewed officials at three departments (Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development) and two agencies (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Social Security Administration). We visited five states and generally met with officials of state, local, and community-based organizations in two cities in each state—one urban location and one rural community. Our fieldwork was performed in three counties (Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Placer) in California; Georgetown and Wilmington, Delaware; Louisville and Barren County, Kentucky; Omaha and Crete, Nebraska; and Salt Lake City and Logan, Utah. In selecting the states for our fieldwork, we sought to include states (1) that had undertaken welfare simplification or service integration initiatives, (2) with combined welfare and workforce agencies, (3) that had enhanced automated systems for eligibility determinations and benefit level calculations, (4) with state-supervised and county-administered welfare systems, and (5) that were geographically diverse. To obtain data on the extent to which Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) families participate in multiple means-tested federal programs, we reviewed and analyzed the results of two national Bureau of the Census surveys: The March 2000 supplement of the Current Population Survey (CPS) — The survey has information on TANF families’ participation in multiple federal programs, is conducted monthly of about 47,000 households, and is designed to be a nationally representative sample of the country. The total response rate for the March 2000 CPS supplement was about 86 percent. The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP)—A nationally representative sample of approximately 20,000 households, SIPP consists of information on social and demographic characteristics for each person in the household. SIPP contains other household data in areas such as labor force activity, income, assets and liabilities, postsecondary education, private health insurance coverage, pension plan coverage, and participation in selected means-tested federal programs. To determine the extent and sources of variation in financial eligibility rules among the 11 programs, we reviewed relevant federal statutes and regulations, as well as the 2000 Green Book (Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives) and the 2000 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (published by the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services Administration). We also reviewed information contained in CRS’ December 1999 report, Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons With Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY 1996-FY 1998. We discussed the financial eligibility rules with federal program officials and reviewed relevant documents such as program handbooks and policy guidance. In addition, during our site visits we met with state officials, local office managers, and eligibility workers to obtain their views on variations in financial eligibility rules. To obtain information about how the variation in financial eligibility rules and other factors affects the administrative processes for determining eligibility, we discussed these issues with state and local eligibility workers and supervisors to obtain their views. During these meetings, staff assisted us in identifying rule differences and the extent to which these variations affected the eligibility determination processes. We also reviewed state-prepared documents such as memorandums, discussion papers, and reports. We met with experts in the areas of means-tested federal programs and eligibility simplification and with advocacy groups to obtain their views on how the variations in financial rules impacted clients and their efforts to access benefits and services. We also conducted a content analysis of the multiple applications used by different programs in Utah to determine the amount of overlap in questions. To determine how federal, state, and local agencies have sought to streamline or coordinate eligibility determination processes, we met with federal program officials to discuss their efforts to simplify eligibility and work more closely with other departments and agencies. In addition, we reviewed statutes, program guidance, and other documents that identified actions to streamline and coordinate at the federal level. As part of our fieldwork, we met with state and local officials to discuss their efforts to simplify eligibility determination processes. We discussed some of these streamlining efforts with frontline workers, including eligibility workers and supervisors. We also reviewed documents obtained at these meetings, such as reorganization strategies and other state and local planning documents. To obtain estimates of federal costs for program administration, we used administrative cost data from federal agency sources for programs where such data were available: TANF, Food Stamps, Medicaid, School Meals, Housing Choice Voucher, Low-rent Public Housing, and SSI. For the other programs, we developed estimates of federal administrative costs as follows. For the WIC program, overall administrative cost data available from the agency includes nutrition education and assessment costs as part of the administrative cost category. To develop our estimate, we computed and removed the amount (two-thirds of the costs) associated with nutrition assessment activities and attributed the remainder to general administration. For the Child Care program, eligibility determination data are gathered separately from administrative cost data by the states. To make a fiscal year 1998 estimate we developed separate estimates for eligibility determination costs and other administrative costs and added the components together. For the LIHEAP and SCHIP programs, the maximum allowable administrative cost percentage (10 percent) was applied to the separate appropriations for 1998 where administrative costs could be applied. Our work was done between September 2000 and August 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The following people also made important contributions to this report: George Erhart; Sheila Nicholson; Mikki Holmes; Daniel Schwimer; and Barbara Alsip. Child Care: States Increased Spending on Low-Income Families (GAO- 01-293, Feb. 2, 2001). Food Stamp Program: States Seek to Reduce Payment Errors and Program Complexity (GAO-01-272, Jan. 19, 2001). Food Assistance: Activities and Use of Nonprogram Resources at Six WIC Agencies (GAO/RCED-00-202, Sept. 29, 2000). Benefit and Loan Programs: Improved Data Sharing Could Enhance Program Integrity (GAO/HEHS-00-119, Sept. 13, 2000). Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated Federal Effort (GAO/HEHS-00-48, Apr. 27, 2000). Welfare Reform: States’ Experiences in Providing Employment Assistance to TANF Clients (GAO/HEHS-99-22, Feb. 26, 1999). Welfare Reform: Few States are Likely to Use the Simplified Food Stamp Program (GAO/RCED-99-43, Jan. 29, 1999). Medicaid: Early Implications of Welfare Reform for Beneficiaries and States (GAO/HEHS-98-62, Feb. 24, 1998). Welfare Programs: Opportunities to Consolidate and Increase Program Efficiencies (GAO/HEHS-95-139, May 31, 1995). Means-Tested Programs: An Overview, Problems, and Issues (GAO/T- HEHS-95-76, Feb. 7, 1995) Welfare Simplification: States’ Views on Coordinating Services for Low- Income Families (GAO/HRD-87-110FS, Jul. 29, 1987). Welfare Simplification: Thirty-Two States’ Views on Coordinating Services for Low-Income Families (GAO/HRD-87-6FS, Oct. 30, 1986). Welfare Simplification: Projects to Coordinate Services for Low-Income Families (GAO/HRD-86-124FS, Aug. 29, 1986). Needs-Based Programs: Eligibility and Benefit Factors (GAO/HRD-86- 107FS, Jul. 9, 1986). | About 80 means-tested federal programs assisted low-income people in 1998. GAO reviewed 11 programs that assisted families and individuals with income, food, medical assistance, and housing. Despite substantial overlap in the populations they serve, the 11 programs varied significantly in their financial eligibility rules. At the most basic level, the dollar levels of the income limits--the maximum amounts of income an applicant can have and still be eligible for a program--vary across programs. Beyond this, differences exist in the income rules, such as whose income and what types of income are counted. The variations and complexity of the federal financial eligibility rules, along with other factors, have led to processes that are often duplicative and cumbersome for both caseworkers and applicants. Overall, federal, state, and local entities have made little progress in simplifying or coordinating eligibility determination processes. States realigned some of the financial rules, but only to a limited extent. Another approach uses computer systems to establish joint eligibility determination processes that a single caseworker can administer. Efforts to simplify or better coordinate eligibility determination processes confront many obstacles, including restrictive federal program statutes and regulations. In addition, program costs may rise if financial eligibility rules are changed. |
The government has sent skimmers, booms and other resources to clean up a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that's become far worse than initially thought and threatens the fragile marshlands along the shore, a Coast Guard official said Thursday.
Fishing boats are docked in Venice, La., Thursday, April 29, 2010. Local fishermen are worried about how their industry will withstand a growing oil spill that resulted from last week's explosion and... (Associated Press)
Oil, bottom right, is seen approaching the Louisiana Coast, top left, in this aerial photo taken 8 miles from shore, Wednesday, April 28, 2010. The massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is even worse... (Associated Press)
Oil, bottom right, is seen approaching the Louisiana Coast, top left, in this aerial photo taken 8 miles from shore, Wednesday, April 28, 2010. The massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is even worse... (Associated Press)
Workers load oil booms onto a crew boat to assist in the containment of oil from a leaking pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico near the coast of Louisiana in Venice, La., Thursday, April 29, 2010. The leak... (Associated Press)
Captain Michael Nguyen stands on his fishing boat in Venice, La., Thursday, April 29, 2010. Local fishermen are worried about how their industry will withstand a growing oil spill that resulted from last... (Associated Press)
Workers load oil booms onto a crew boat to assist in the containment of oil from a leaking pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico near the coast of Louisiana in Venice, La., Thursday, April 29, 2010. The leak... (Associated Press)
Coast Guard Rear Adm. Sally Brice-O'Hara said at the White House that the government's priority was to support the oil company BP PLC in employing booms, skimmers, chemical dispersants and controlled burns to fight the oil surging from the seabed.
An executive for BP PLC, which operated the oil rig that exploded and sank last week, said earlier in the day on NBC's "Today" that the company would welcome help from the U.S. military.
"We'll take help from anyone," said Doug Suttles, chief operating officer for BP Exploration and Production.
The Coast Guard has urged the company to formally request more resources from the Defense Department. President Barack Obama has dispatched Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson had been dispatched to help with the spill. The president said his administration will use "every single available resource at our disposal" to respond to the spill.
But time may be running out: Oil from the spill had crept to within 12 miles of the coast, and it could reach shore as soon as Friday. A third leak was discovered, which government officials said is spewing five times as much oil into the water as originally estimated _ about 5,000 barrels a day coming from the blown-out well 40 miles offshore.
Suttles had initially disputed the government's estimate, and that the company was unable to handle the operation to contain it.
But early Thursday, he acknowledged on "Today" that the leak may be as bad as the government says. He said there was no way to measure the flow at the seabed and estimates have to come from how much oil makes it to the surface.
If the well cannot be closed, almost 100,000 barrels of oil, or 4.2 million gallons, could spill into the Gulf before crews can drill a relief well to alleviate the pressure. By comparison, the Exxon Valdez, the worst oil spill in U.S. history, leaked 11 million gallons into Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989.
As dawn broke Thursday in the oil industry hub of Venice, about 75 miles from New Orleans and not far from the mouth of the Mississippi River, crews loaded an orange oil boom aboard a supply boat at Bud's Boat Launch. There, local officials expressed frustration with the pace of the government's response and the communication they were getting from the Coast Guard and BP officials.
"We're not doing everything we can do," said Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish, which straddles the Mississippi River at the tip of Louisiana.
"Give us the worst-case scenario. How far inland is this supposed to go?" Nungesser said. He has suggested enlisting the local fishing fleet to spread booms to halt the oil, which threatens some of the nation's most fertile seafood grounds.
There's a growing tension in towns like Port Sulphur and Empire along Louisiana 23, which runs south of New Orleans along the Mississippi River into prime oyster and shrimping waters.
Companies like Chevron and ConocoPhillips have facilities nearby, and some are hesisitant to criticize BP or the federal government, knowing the oil industry is as much a staple here as the fishermen.
"I don't think there's a lot of blame going around here, people are just cocerned about their livlihoods," said Sullivan Vullo, who owns La Casa Cafe in Port Sulphur.
Louisiana has opened a special shrimp season along parts of the coast so shrimpers can harvest the profitable white shrimp before the spill has an effect.
The spill has moved steadily toward the mouth of the Mississippi River and the wetland areas east of it, home to hundreds of species of wildlife and near some rich oyster grounds.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Thursday declared a state of emergency so officials could begin preparing for the oil's impact. His declaration says at least 10 wildlife management areas and refuges in his state and neighboring Mississippi are in the oil plume's path. It also notes that billions of dollars have been invested in coastal restoration projects that may be at risk.
A federal class-action lawsuit was filed late Wednesday over the oil spill on behalf of two commercial shrimpers from Louisiana, Acy J. Cooper Jr. and Ronnie Louis Anderson.
The suit seeks at least $5 million in compensatory damages plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages against Transocean, BP, Halliburton Energy Services Inc. and Cameron International Corp.
Jim Klick, a lawyer for Cooper and Anderson, said the oil spill already is disrupting the commercial shrimping industry.
"They should be preparing themselves for the upcoming shrimp season," he said. "Now they're very much concerned that the whole shrimp season is out."
Mike Brewer, 40, who lost his oil spill response company in the devastation of Hurricane Katrina nearly five years ago, said the area was accustomed to the occassional minor spill. But he feared the scale of the escaping oil was beyond the capacity of existing resources.
"You're pumping out a massive amount of oil. There is no way to stop it," he said.
The rig Deepwater Horizon sank a week ago after exploding two days earlier. Of its crew of 126, 11 are missing and presumed dead. The rig was owned by Transocean Ltd. and operated by BP. Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry said BP is responsible for bringing resources to shut off the flow and clean up the spill.
"It has become clear after several unsuccessful attempts to determine the cause" that agencies must supplement what's being done by the company, she said.
A fleet of boats working under an oil industry consortium has been using booms to corral and then skim oil from the surface.
Landry said a controlled test to burn the leaking oil was successful late Wednesday afternoon. BP was to set more fires after the test, but as night fell, there were no more burns. None were planned for Thursday as sea conditions deteriorated.
The decision to burn some of the oil came after crews operating submersible robots failed to activate a shut-off device that would halt the flow of oil on the sea bottom 5,000 feet below.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was briefed Thursday morning on the issue, said his spokesman, Capt. John Kirby. But Kirby said the Defense Department has received no request for help, nor is it doing any detailed planning for any mission on the oil spill.
President Barack Obama has directed officials to aggressively confront the spill, but the cost of the cleanup will fall on BP, spokesman Nick Shapiro said.
BP has asked local fishermen for help. A memo from Sen. David Vitter's office said BP was seeking to contract with shrimp boats, oyster boats and other vessels for hire to help with deploying containment boom in the Gulf. Staging areas were in Venice, La.; Mobile, Ala.; Pascagoula and Biloxi, Miss.; and Pensacola, Fla. Information on the "Vessel Opportunity Program" also was posted on Sen. Mary Landrieu's website.
Hai Huynh, 39, and his 22-year-old deck hand Robert Huynh were ready to help however they could even though the Coast Guard will only allow vessels with lifeboats to help with carrying oil booms to contain the spill.
"We want to go out and help clean up the oil," Robert Huynh said aboard their freshly painted steel-hulled shrimp boat, the Miss Kimberly. "We're ready."
___
Associated Press writers Janet McConnaughey, Kevin McGill Michael Kunzelman and Brett Martel in New Orleans, Melinda Deslatte in Baton Rouge and Holbrook Mohr in Jackson, Miss., contributed to this report. ||||| Getty Images A boat worked Thursday to collect oil that leaked from the Deepwater Horizon.
The White House escalated its response Thursday to the growing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and a local official said the massive slick is projected to reach the Louisiana coast late Thursday.
In an afternoon appearance in the Rose Garden, President Barack Obama promised to use "every single available resource" of government to help with the spill, which could be one of the largest in U.S. history. The U.S. military began mobilizing for what could be a major effort to prevent environmental damage to Louisiana and other states.
The oil "is already in state waters" and will reach the Pass-a-Loutre Wildlife Management Area, near the southernmost tip of the state later Thursday, Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser said after a meeting with council members and a congressman to discuss the emergency.
The prospects for slowing the spread of the oil appear dim, and the slick threatens to cause significant environmental damage and disruption to business along the Gulf Coast. In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal declared a state of emergency Thursday to aid state response and asked the Coast Guard and BP PLC to deploy more resources to the state.
It appears that the oil well, damaged after a Transocean Ltd. rig hired by BP exploded and sank last week, is leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day, five times the rate thought earlier this week, officials said. The slick spans about 600 square miles.
Obama administration officials said the disaster could prompt a rethinking of the president's recently announced proposal to allow expanded offshore oil and gas drilling.
The Navy sent 66,000 feet of inflatable oil booms to the Gulf to help contain the spill, as well as seven towable skimming systems and 50 contractors with experience operating the equipment, according to military officials at the Pentagon.
The Navy is also making two large facilities available to the Coast Guard personnel and contractors employed by BP who are currently taking the lead in fighting the spill.
News Hub: Oil Spill Sparks Washington Debate 1:25 WSJ's Stephen Power joins the News Hub from Washington with the latest on the political fallout of the growing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Military officials said the booms and skimmers were being sent to a Naval construction base in Gulfport, Miss.
The Navy also opened its air base in Pensacola, Fla., to the effort. Military officials said the sprawling installation was emerging as a key staging area for the expanding push to contain the spill. They said it would be housed by both Coast Guard personnel and the contractors from companies like the O'Brien Group that BP hired to help limit the damage.
The military role is almost certain to grow. Jamie Graybeal, a spokesman for Northern Command, said a team of officers was en route to the Gulf to help coordinate aid requests. Northcom itself is preparing various options for military aid and could decide later today about what troops and equipment to send to the site of the spill, Mr. Graybeal said.
Officials emphasized that BP will be legally responsible for the cost of the clean-up, and said the U.S. demands the strongest response possible from the company. They declined to provide a price estimate for the costs. BP has said that it is spending $6 million a day to combat the oil spill. It is unclear what the cost, including federal support, will total.
As government efforts to combat the spill ramped up, evidence mounted that the disaster could change the dynamics of an energy-policy debate in Washington. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the future of Mr. Obama's proposal to allow expanded oil drilling could depend on the cause of the spill.
"The president's announcement [allowing expanded drilling] was the beginning not the end of a process. We don't know what caused this. Could that possibility change the president's view point on drilling? Of course," Mr. Gibbs said.
White House energy czar Carol Browner said the spill will be a factor as the administration evaluates future offshore drilling proposals. Ms. Browner said the spill will become a "point of debate" if Congress discusses climate legislation containing proposals to allow more offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, a plan that has been opposed by environmental groups and some Florida political leaders.
—Angel Gonzalez, Siobhan Hughes and Ian Talley contributed to this article.
Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at [email protected] and Elizabeth Williamson at [email protected] ||||| The worsening oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday threatened not only the shores of five states but also President Obama's plan to open vast stretches of U.S. coastline to oil and gas drilling.
Hours before the spill started washing ashore in Louisiana late Thursday, members of Congress issued new calls for Obama to abandon his plans for expanded offshore drilling, and White House officials conceded that the spreading oil slick could cause the president to rethink his position. "We need to figure out what happened," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "Would a finding of something possibly affect that? Of course."
The outlook in the Gulf of Mexico remained bleak in the wake of the April 20 explosion that sank the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and killed 11 workers. A change in the weather and choppy waters prevented a second burn of oil at sea and slowed efforts by a flotilla of ships to skim the oily mixture from the surface of the gulf, federal officials said. Continuing efforts to use remote-controlled robotic submarines to activate a malfunctioning blowout preventer lying on the sea floor in 5,000 feet of water failed.
The Coast Guard approved an experimental plan by petroleum giant BP, which had leased the rig, to apply chemical dispersants underwater near the places where oil is gushing from three breaks in the well pipes at an estimated rate of 5,000 barrels a day.
In Washington, the White House held a series of high-profile media events aimed at communicating that the administration is fully engaged in the crisis. Obama went to the Rose Garden and said, "While BP is ultimately responsible for funding the cost of response and cleanup operations, my administration will continue to use every single available resource at our disposal, including potentially the Department of Defense, to address the incident."
At a midday news conference, the administration rolled out two Cabinet chiefs and other senior White House advisers to assert that the government would do whatever it could to help BP stop the leak.
The administration is well aware that the president's campaign victory was built in part on a belief among voters that he would do a better job at responding to disasters like Hurricane Katrina than did President Bush. "This is in that list: Are you competently running government?" Gibbs said. He said the news conference with senior officials was aimed at letting the press and the public "know what we've done to respond."
Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said there were more than 50 vessels as well as aircraft deployed to the area of the spill and that workers had laid down 174,060 feet of absorbent foam booms and recovered 18,180 barrels of an oily mixture from the gulf's surface. She said they would also open a second command center in Mobile, Ala., in addition to the one in Louisiana.
The Navy said it is sending 66,000 feet of inflatable boom and seven skimming systems, and would offer its bases in the region as staging areas for the operation.
White House officials said they began holding regular conference calls with BP executives soon after the accident. On Thursday, Obama also called the governors of the five Gulf Coast states, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar met with oil and gas industry executives to appeal for ideas and help. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal declared a state of emergency and mobilized National Guard troops.
On Friday, Napolitano, Salazar and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will travel to the Gulf Coast at the president's request with Carol Browner, the White House director of energy and climate change policy, and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to inspect ooperations dedicated to minimizing environmental risks.
Extensive damage
Despite these efforts, it remained possible that the oil leak could continue for as long as three months, by which time it would rival the size of the 1989 spill from the Exxon Valdez. If efforts to reactivate the blowout-preventer fail, BP will try to lower 100-ton domes on top of the leaks in the pipes now lying on the sea floor and funnel the oil up through pipes to storage vessels. Such methods have been used before, but generally at depths of 350 feet or less.
BP also plans to start drilling a relief well Friday that would intercept the oil from the existing well and plug the leak, but the company said that could take several weeks. It took more than two months to plug a similar well blowout off the coast of Australia late last year.
By that time, the damage from the spill could be extensive and the political effect on Obama's offshore drilling plan and broader climate change agenda uncertain.
"I don't know whether it changes our understanding of offshore oil," David Pumphrey, deputy director of the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said of the accident. "But I think it changes the political debate quite a bit."
In backing wider offshore oil and gas exploration only a month ago, Obama promised to "employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil exploration." He acknowledged that his decision would provoke criticism from those who decried the expansion and those who said it did not go far enough.
"Ultimately, we need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right, between business leaders and environmentalists, between those who would claim drilling is a cure-all and those who would claim it has no place," Obama said.
Political damage, too
The accident in the gulf may provide more firepower for the critics on the left who for years have lobbied presidents and Congress to keep in place federal moratoriums on further offshore exploration. Those moratoriums have expired.
Florida Sen. Bill Nelson (D) called on Obama to step back from his expanded offshore drilling plans. In a letter to the president, Nelson said he would file legislation to ban the Interior Department from following through on Obama's proposal for new seismic and drilling activity. He said the gulf spill "may be an environmental and economic disaster that wreaks havoc for commercial fishing and tourism along the Gulf of Mexico coast."
Dan McLaughlin, a top aide to Nelson, said it was too early to say whether the federal government had responded adequately to what he called "our worst nightmare come true." But McLaughlin asked why the government had not done more to ensure that the oil companies could shut down a well if a catastrophic failure happened. "Somebody is going to have to ask the question as to why the regulators didn't put this question to the industry before?" McLaughlin said. "If everything fails, then what?"
That inquiry will likely focus on the blowout-preventer, which like the sunken drilling rig was owned by Transocean. In Norway, for example, blowout preventers are required to have a device known as an acoustic valve that can help assure activation in the event of an accident, but that device isn't required in the United States and wasn't part of the blowout preventer used on this well. BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward said Wednesday that the blowout preventer had been inspected 10 days before the accident.
The Minerals Management Service, a part of the Interior Department that oversees safety on offshore rigs, said it would complete new inspections of all gulf exploration drilling rigs within seven days to prevent a repeat of the April 20 blast.
Obama aides stressed at the midday briefing that BP would bear the cost of the spill, including the cost of plugging the well, cleaning shorelines and paying for government air and water tests. Separately, fishermen and others anticipating environmental damage filed class-action suits against the company. On a day when the stock market rose broadly and sharply, BP's stock price fell more than 8 percent to $52.56 a share. | The feds are ramping up efforts to contain the widening oil spill near Louisiana, with Janet Napolitano designating it an event of "national significance." For President Obama, it's also an event of political significance. With oil pouring into the Gulf, the environmental mess is already causing trouble for his plan to expand offshore drilling, reports the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. White House energy czar Carol Browner says the spill will be a "point of debate" when the issue comes up in climate change legislation. Adds Robert Gibbs: "We don't know what caused this. Could that possibility change the president's viewpoint on drilling? Of course." The spill, meanwhile, is on track to reach fragile shorelands as early as tonight. |
This section describes data and statistics from government, industry, and information technology (IT) security firms regarding the current state of cybersecurity threats in the United States and internationally. These include incident estimates, costs, and annual reports on data security breaches, identity thefts, cybercrimes, malwares, and network securities. Table 2 contains descriptions of and links to glossaries of useful cybersecurity terms, including those related to cloud computing and cyber warfare. | This report describes data and statistics from government, industry, and information technology (IT) security firms regarding the current state of cybersecurity threats in the United States and internationally. These include incident estimates, costs, and annual reports on data security breaches, identity thefts, cybercrimes, malware, and network securities. Much is written on this topic, and this CRS report directs the reader to authoritative sources that address many of the most prominent issues. The annotated descriptions of these sources are listed in reverse chronological order, with an emphasis on material published in the last several years. Included are resources and studies from government agencies (federal, state, local, and international), think tanks, academic institutions, news organizations, and other sources. The following reports comprise a series of authoritative reports and resources on these additional cybersecurity topics: CRS Report R44405, Cybersecurity: Overview Reports and Links to Government, News, and Related Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44406, Cybersecurity: Education, Training, and R&D Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44408, Cybersecurity: Cybercrime and National Security Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44410, Cybersecurity: Critical Infrastructure Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44417, Cybersecurity: State, Local, and International Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R44427, Cybersecurity: Federal Government Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan CRS Report R43317, Cybersecurity: Legislation, Hearings, and Executive Branch Documents, by Rita Tehan |
Before commencing operations, new airlines must obtain two separate authorizations from DOT—“economic” authority from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) and “safety” authority from FAA. Within OST, the Air Carrier Fitness Division is responsible for assessing whether applicants have the managerial competence, disposition to comply with regulations, and financial resources necessary to operate a new airline. FAA’s Flight Standards Service uses a multiphase process to determine whether an applicant’s manuals, aircraft, facilities, and personnel meet federal safety standards. Once airlines begin actual operations, FAA is responsible for monitoring the operations, primarily by conducting safety inspections. FAA conducts two types of inspections: routine and special. Routine inspections are generally spot checks performed by individual inspectors on a periodic basis. FAA’s special inspections complement routine inspections by providing more comprehensive evaluations of airlines’ operations. To analyze the safety performance of new airlines, we used three sets of data—data on accidents from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), FAA’s data on incidents, and FAA’s data on enforcement actions initiated against airlines. We discussed the selection of these data sets with officials from FAA, DOT, and NTSB, who agreed that they were appropriate for our analysis. However, it should be noted that all three have limitations. Specifically, some of NTSB’s files on accidents did not definitively specify the airline that was operating the aircraft; FAA’s data on incidents may be subject to some underreporting; and the data on the number of enforcement actions initiated, while complete, may reflect differences among FAA field offices in the emphasis they placed on initiating enforcement actions. We reviewed and made refinements to these data, where appropriate, to address these concerns. NTSB, the official source of information on airline accidents, defines accidents as events in which individuals are killed or suffer serious injury, or the aircraft is substantially damaged. By NTSB’s definition, accidents can range from fatal crashes in which the aircraft is destroyed and all crew and passengers aboard are killed, to events in which only one person suffers a broken bone and the aircraft is not damaged, to still others in which there is substantial aircraft damage, but no fatalities or serious injuries. FAA generally defines incidents as occurrences other than accidents associated with the operation of an aircraft that affect or could affect the safety of operations. Among the commonly recorded types of incidents are engine malfunctions, system failures, landing gear collapses, and losses of directional control. Other types of incidents include collisions with various structures, such as runway lights, fences, wires, or poles; fires; and in-flight turbulence resulting in damage to the aircraft or less serious personal injury. FAA may initiate enforcement actions in response to apparent or alleged violations of the Federal Aviation Act or federal aviation regulations. The actions that can be taken under FAA’s compliance and enforcement program include administrative actions, such as warning notices and letters of correction, and legal enforcement remedies, such as revoking, suspending, or amending an airline’s operating authority. Examples of violations that can lead to enforcement actions range from an airline’s failure to perform proper aircraft maintenance to a pilot’s failure to maintain the altitude directed by air traffic control. Another example is a pilot who possesses a valid pilot certificate but inadvertently pilots an aircraft without the certificate in his or her possession. The available data show that both new and established airlines experience accidents infrequently. Nevertheless, from 1990 through 1994, new airlines had an average accident rate of 0.60 per 100,000 departures compared with the established airlines’ average rate of 0.36 per 100,000 departures.However, NTSB’s definition of accident can range from fatal crashes in which the aircraft is destroyed and all crew and passengers aboard are killed, to events where there is substantial damage to the aircraft but no fatalities or serious injuries, and to still others where only one person may suffer a broken bone, but the aircraft suffers no substantial damage. As a result, the use and interpretation of accident data require caution. Of the 201 accidents that occurred in 1990 through 1994, 45 involved fatalities, of which 5 involved new airlines. Both new and established airlines had a higher number of incidents and enforcement actions from 1990 through 1994, thus providing much more information for analyzing safety trends. During 1990 through 1994, there were a total of 2,879 incidents and 3,982 enforcement actions. Both new large and commuter airlines experienced higher average rates of incidents and enforcement actions, as a group, than established large and commuter airlines. In particular, for new airlines, the rates of incidents and enforcement actions peaked during their early years of operations. However, there was some clustering of these events among the new airlines. More than half of the new airlines had no incidents during the period of our analysis, and 42 percent of the new airlines had no enforcement actions initiated against them. Thus, while these rates provide useful information for analysis, it would not be appropriate to conclude that new airlines provide unsafe service. (Detailed information on new airlines’ and established airlines’ departures, accidents, incidents, FAA-initiated enforcement actions, and their respective rates is contained in app. II.) In 1990 through 1994, NTSB reported 201 accidents by commercial airlines that provide scheduled service. Most airlines—both new and established—had no accidents during 1990-94. For example, among the 29 new large airlines in our review, 3 had accidents; the other 26 had no accidents during the 5-year period. Similarly, of the 50 new commuters, 7 had accidents. Of the 203 established airlines, 69 had accidents. The remaining 134 had no accidents. Of the 201 accidents, 45 involved fatalities. These accidents ranged from 1 accident in which 132 people on board the aircraft were killed to 12 separate accidents in which 1 person was killed; in 8 of those 12 accidents, the person killed was not on board the aircraft. In one case, for example, an airline employee was killed after walking into a rotating propeller blade. The remaining 156 accidents involved serious injury and/or substantial aircraft damage. New airlines experienced 13 of the 201 total accidents and 5 of the 45 fatal accidents. The new airlines’ accidents resulted in a rate of 0.60 per 100,000 departures, while the established airlines’ accidents resulted in a rate of 0.36 per 100,000 departures. More specifically, new large airlines had an accident rate of 1.35 per 100,000 departures, while large established airlines had a rate of 0.30 per 100,000 departures. In contrast, new commuters had an accident rate of 0.48 per 100,000 departures, while established commuters had a rate of 0.46 per 100,000 departures. Aware that the current definition of accident does not distinguish among the varying degrees of accidents’ severity, NTSB and FAA have undertaken an effort to develop new subclassifications of aviation accidents. One option that has been explored is to define accidents according to the significance of damage, recording and grouping data accordingly. However, according to officials in FAA’s Office of Accident Investigations and NTSB’s Office of Research and Engineering, the results of the joint effort have not yet been completed, and no completion date has been set. During 1990 through 1994, new large and commuter airlines had incident rates that were, on average, 52 percent higher than those of established airlines (overall, a rate of 8.1 incidents per 100,000 departures compared with a rate of 5.4 incidents per 100,000 departures for established airlines). For new large airlines, the incident rate was over twice that of large established airlines (a rate of 11.5 incidents per 100,000 departures compared with a rate of 5.1 incidents per 100,000 departures for large established airlines). The average incident rate for new commuters during 1990 through 1994 was also higher than that of established commuters, although the difference was not as great. (See table 1.) As with our analysis of accidents, these rates represent the combined experiences of the airlines in each of the different categories over the entire 5-year period. Of the new airlines, 38 (48.1 percent) experienced at least one incident sometime during 1990-94, while the other 41 experienced no incidents. Of the new airlines that experienced incidents, the incident rates ranged from 2.8 to 666.7 incidents per 100,000 departures. Of the 203 established airlines, 162 (79.8 percent) had one or more incidents during the same period, while the other 41 experienced no incidents. At certain times during their first 5 years of operations, new airlines that experienced incidents had rates that greatly exceeded the average rates for established airlines. For new large airlines, these times were during their second, fourth, and fifth years of operations. For example, the rate for new large airlines more than tripled between their first and second years of operations. Of the 18 new large airlines that had their second year of operations sometime during 1990 through 1994, 7 (38.9 percent) had incidents. The other 11 second-year new airlines had no incidents. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOT noted that one adverse event for a new airline with a limited number of departures can significantly affect accident, incident, or enforcement rates. We agree that because new airlines have fewer departures, the rates at which they experience problems must be viewed with caution. Nevertheless, our review included the entire data sets of departures, accidents, incidents, and enforcement actions for new and established airlines for a 5-year period, and thus these data are important pieces of information in FAA’s efforts to oversee the airline industry. The purpose of our analysis of these data was to assess analytically whether there were differences between new and established airlines overall that might warrant FAA’s increased oversight of new airlines. Figure 1 shows the change in the incident rates for new large airlines over their first 5 years of operations and compares them with the average rate for large established airlines. For new commuters, the average incident rate during their first year of operations was about the same as for established commuters. But by their third year of operations, new commuters had an incident rate that was twice as great as the rate for established commuters (11.6 versus 5.8 per 100,000 departures) and more than twice the rate they experienced in their first year of operations. (Of the 23 new commuters that operated for at least 3 years during 1990 through 1994, 10 experienced incidents in their third year.) During the new commuters’ fourth and fifth years of operations, the incident rate declined. Figure 2 shows the change in the incident rates for new commuters over their first 5 years of operations and compares them with the average rate for established commuters. Our analysis did not specifically identify the reasons why new airlines experienced higher levels of incidents during certain periods of their first 5 years of operations. We discussed the results of our analysis with FAA officials. They said that they were unaware of these trends—they had not done an analysis similar to ours for new airlines—nor were they aware of any other studies addressing this issue. Nevertheless, they theorized that new airlines may encounter more incidents because their fleets expanded faster than their organizational ability to absorb the growth, train their staff, and maintain their fleets. Other factors can also be a cause for concern and may warrant closer scrutiny. These include precarious financial conditions (which some new airlines encountered) or the level at which major functions, such as maintenance, are contracted out, which can lead to a loss of control or oversight—a concern that FAA recently acknowledged in its review of ValuJet Airlines. FAA’s compliance and enforcement program is designed to promote compliance with both statutory and regulatory requirements. Under this program, the agency may initiate enforcement actions in response to apparent or alleged violations of the laws governing federal aviation or of federal aviation regulations. Enforcement actions may be initiated on the basis of FAA’s inspection results or on information provided by other sources such as air traffic controllers or employees in the airline industry. Enforcement actions include administrative actions, such as warning notices and letters of correction; legal enforcement remedies, such as amending, suspending, or revoking airlines’ operating certificates; and punitive actions, such as imposing civil (financial) penalties and temporarily suspending certificates. For example, FAA may pursue civil penalties against an airline that operates aircraft that are not airworthy, repairs equipment using unacceptable methods, or violates regulations on the transportation of hazardous materials. When an immediate safety need exists, FAA inspectors can also issue an emergency revocation order—the most severe action that can be taken against a domestic airline—to prevent an airline from conducting flight operations. In 1990 through 1994, FAA initiated twice the rate of enforcement actions against new airlines as a group than it initiated against established airlines. FAA initiated 14.8 enforcement actions per 100,000 departures against new airlines and 7.3 per 100,000 departures against established airlines. In addition, just as both new large and commuter airlines experienced elevated rates of incidents during their early years of operations, they also experienced higher rates of enforcement actions during their early years of operations. FAA initiated considerably higher rates of enforcement actions against new large airlines, as a group, than it did against large established airlines. In 1990 through 1994, new large airlines had 8 times more enforcement actions than their established counterparts—an average of 64.3 actions initiated against them per 100,000 departures compared with 7.8 actions per 100,000 departures for large established airlines. Figure 3 shows the change in the rate of enforcement actions initiated against new large airlines during their first 5 years of operations. Most of the enforcement actions that FAA initiated against new large airlines were concentrated among relatively few airlines. Of the 190 total enforcement actions initiated against new large airlines during the period, FAA initiated 141 (74.2 percent) against 10 airlines and 49 against 11 other airlines. FAA initiated no enforcement actions against eight airlines that were new airlines during the period. FAA initiated relatively fewer enforcement actions against both new and established commuters, and the difference in the average number of enforcement actions initiated was smaller. In 1990 through 1994, FAA initiated an average of 7.0 enforcement actions against new commuters per 100,000 departures compared with 6.2 against established commuters per 100,000 departures. As with incident rates, new commuters tended to experience rising rates of enforcement actions until after their third year of operations. Figure 4 shows the incidence of FAA-initiated enforcement actions during the new commuters’ first 5 years of operations. FAA initiated an average of 10.7 enforcement actions against new commuters during their third year of operations—more than 70 percent higher than the average rate for established commuters. During the new commuters’ fourth and fifth years of operations, the rate of enforcement actions initiated declined markedly. Similar to the pattern observed for new large airlines, most of the enforcement actions were initiated against relatively few new commuters. Of the 130 total actions initiated against new commuters in 1990 through 1994, FAA initiated 106 (81.5 percent) against 10 airlines; the other 24 enforcement actions were divided among another 15 airlines. FAA initiated no enforcement actions against the remaining 25 new commuters. FAA’s data reveal that most enforcement cases initiated against scheduled airlines resulted in administrative actions, rather than other actions. Of the total 2,286 enforcement cases that had been initiated in 1993 for which data on final action are available, 1,538 (67.3 percent) concluded with an administrative action, 84 (3.7 percent) concluded with a civil penalty, 79 (3.5 percent) concluded with a certificate suspension, and 18 (0.8 percent) concluded with a revocation. In another 567 cases (24.8 percent), FAA took no action. FAA is responsible for promoting safety in air transportation, and the airlines are responsible for operating their aircraft safely in compliance with the requirements in title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations that cover the aircraft and its systems, maintenance, and personnel and training. FAA oversees the airlines’ programs by monitoring the safety of all operating airlines and conducting periodic inspections. FAA’s national inspection guidelines in effect during the period of our review, which set priorities and established a minimum standard for the number and type of inspections, did not call for new airlines to be inspected any differently from established airlines. However, the guidelines grant latitude to FAA’s regional and district offices to identify the areas that they determine to be important in the interest of safety. This discretionary surveillance allows inspectors and their supervisors at FAA’s field offices to develop work programs that can be tailored to their particular environments and be balanced against such competing priorities as accident investigations. Over the years, FAA has targeted specific airlines and areas of commercial airline operations for increased surveillance on the basis of a variety of factors. For example, FAA has used an increased frequency of noncompliance with federal aviation regulations, an increased frequency of incidents by individual airlines, the deteriorating financial conditions of individual airlines, and non-airline-specific attributes (such as aging aircraft) to target its surveillance activities. However, FAA has not compared the performance characteristics of new airlines, as a group, with those of established airlines to determine whether new airlines should be targeted for increased surveillance. In general, we found that in 1990 through 1994, FAA’s field offices inspected new large airlines, as a group, more frequently than large established airlines. On average, for large airlines, FAA conducted one inspection for every 20.3 new airline departures and one for every 65.5 established airline departures. For new commuters FAA conducted, on average, one inspection for every 113.1 departures and for established commuters, one inspection for every 107.8 departures. However, there was considerable variation in the relative frequency with which FAA inspected individual airlines. At the extremes, the data showed that a few airlines received more than one inspection for every departure, while a few others made hundreds of flights between inspections. FAA’s inspection effort also varied widely among the new airlines that had the greatest average annual number of departures. Of the 10 new large airlines with the highest average number of departures, inspection rates ranged from once every 8 departures to once every 92 departures. Similarly, of the 10 new commuters with the highest average number of departures, the data indicate that FAA’s inspection rates ranged from once every 38 departures to once every 340 departures. We also found no clear pattern between inspection rates and the airlines’ rate of incidents or FAA-initiated enforcement actions. For example, among the 17 new large airlines responsible for 85 percent of the incidents and enforcement actions in 1990 through 1994, the frequency of inspections varied from one inspection for every two departures to one inspection for every 66 departures. Similarly, among the 13 new commuters that accounted for approximately 80 percent of the incidents and enforcement actions initiated against that group, the frequency of inspections varied from one inspection for every 21 departures to one inspection for every 188 departures. On the other hand, some airlines that had had no accidents, incidents, or enforcement actions initiated against them were inspected by FAA once every several hundred departures. One other, however, was inspected every two departures. More specifically, of the seven new large airlines that were inspected less frequently than the average for all new large airlines, one—ValuJet—had an incident rate that was 40 percent higher than average, but it was inspected only about one-third as frequently as all new large airlines through calendar year 1994. For new commuters, 8 of the 17 that were inspected less frequently than average had incident or enforcement action rates that were higher than average. FAA officials told us that the low inspection rates for new airlines with relatively high problem rates may be due to the fact that some new airlines, particularly new commuters, may serve airports that are not closely located to the field office where their inspectors are assigned. The recent disclosures about safety problems at ValuJet Airlines and FAA’s oversight of ValuJet illustrate the need for FAA to closely monitor new airlines. ValuJet began operations in October 1993 with 2 aircraft and expanded its operations to 47 aircraft about 2 years later. In October 1994, FAA conducted a detailed inspection of ValuJet and found 35 violations of FAA’s air safety regulations. The two most serious violations—flying an aircraft with broken forward and aft cargo door locks and flying an aircraft over 140 flights with a leaking hydraulic line—resulted in a fine of $8,500. In September 1995, FAA conducted another detailed inspection of ValuJet and found 58 violations, including the absence of a continued analysis and surveillance program, conflicts between the airline’s general maintenance manual and the federal aviation regulations, and the conduct of maintenance with unapproved procedures. In February 1996, FAA initiated a “special emphasis program” for ValuJet. The May 6, 1996, preliminary report on this effort identified 130 findings on several aspects of ValuJet’s operations, including flight operations training, crew qualifications, manuals and procedures, and maintenance. After the May 11, 1996, crash, which killed all 110 passengers and crew, FAA intensified its special emphasis review through an intensive 30-day review of ValuJet and its fleet. That review led to a June 1996 consent order, under which ValuJet agreed to suspend its operations. FAA’s announcement of ValuJet’s agreement cited multiple quality assurance shortcomings, systemwide maintenance deficiencies, the inability to establish the airworthiness of aircraft, and a lack of engineering capability. On August 29, 1996, FAA returned ValuJet’s operating certificate, permitting it to resume operations if the airline was found managerially and financially fit by DOT. On the same day, DOT issued an order tentatively finding ValuJet fit, willing, and able to provide domestic scheduled air service. Under agreement with FAA, upon returning to service, ValuJet would operate a substantially smaller fleet, starting with up to nine aircraft and adding up to six more within the following days. ValuJet resumed limited flight operations on September 30, 1996. FAA’s 90 Day Safety Review recognized that FAA’s surveillance system does not differentiate between established airlines and newly certificated airlines and stated that additional surveillance during the first several years of operations is warranted. The safety review recommended a heightened level of surveillance of newly certificated airlines for at least the first 5 years of the companies’ operations. To do its job effectively, and because its resources are limited, FAA must target its inspectors to the areas of greatest risk. To do so, FAA needs to have performance-based criteria to gauge various aspects of aviation safety, and the criteria or measures of safety must be underpinned by reliable data. Even if FAA inspectors are targeted to the areas of greatest risk, they must be adequately trained to effectively carry out their responsibilities. For nearly a decade, we have reported on long-standing shortcomings in these two areas. Although FAA has agreed with most of our recommendations and taken actions to implement them, until all of the these problems are effectively resolved, the effectiveness of FAA’s inspection program will be limited. In 1987, we reported on the need for FAA to develop criteria for targeting safety inspections to airlines with characteristics that may indicate safety problems. In 1991, FAA began designing a resource-targeting system called the Safety Performance Analysis System, but it is not yet fully operational. As of August 1996, SPAS was in place and undergoing operational tests at 47 field offices. FAA expects the next version of SPAS to be available to inspectors in late 1997 and the system to be fully operational in 1999. When fully operational, SPAS could rely on over 25 databases within FAA, other government agencies, and the aviation industry, including, potentially, the Improved Accident/Incident Data Subsystem and the Enforcement Information Subsystem. The current SPAS version uses four: the Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem (in which inspection results are entered), the Vital Information Subsystem (which contains key data on such items as airlines, pilot and mechanic schools, and repair stations), the Service Difficulty Reporting Subsystem (which contains data on instances of abnormal and potentially unsafe mechanical conditions aboard aircraft), and a non-FAA database of information and analyses on financial credit risks. Building on inspection results and other data, SPAS is intended to assist FAA in applying its limited inspection resources to those entities and areas that pose the greatest risk to aviation safety. The system is also expected to highlight particular types of aircraft or particular airlines for increased surveillance (inspection) or oversight if they are experiencing problems at rates that exceed the averages for that group. Specifically, if problems in a particular inspection category are found at rates exceeding 50 percent of the average experience for that group, the SPAS will trigger “advisory” notifications to the inspector that he or she should look into the situation. If problems are found at rates exceeding 100 percent of the average, the system will trigger a notice of “concern” (alert) to the principal inspectors, who are to respond with a written plan of action. In a 1995 report, however, we concluded that SPAS will not be effective if the quality of its source data is not improved. Specifically, we reported that SPAS may rely on data from numerous databases that contain incomplete, inconsistent, and inaccurate data. To address these concerns, we recommended that FAA develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to improve the quality of those data. FAA agreed to this recommendation and stated that such a strategy would be developed by the end of 1995. In August 1996, FAA reported that this strategy would not be completed until October 1996. The strategy is to provide clear and measurable data quality objectives, accurate assessments of the quality of the current data in each database (including an analysis and possible redirection of FAA’s existing data quality improvement initiatives), milestones for attaining the stated quality objectives, and estimates of the resources required. An FAA official said that implementation would begin immediately afterward. Until FAA implements its data quality improvement strategy, problems with data quality may limit SPAS’ usefulness and prevent it from realizing its full potential to target resources to higher-risk activities. Although FAA management officials told us that inspectors generally have the experience and basic training necessary to accomplish their mission, we and others have reported for several years that FAA’s aviation safety inspectors are not receiving needed training. For example, in 1989 we reported that (1) pilot flight checks were being made by operations inspectors who had not received recurrent flight training and whose qualifications to make pilot flight checks had expired and (2) airworthiness inspectors received only about 50 percent of the training that was planned for them. Recognizing that some of its employees had received expensive training they did not need to do their jobs while others did not receive essential training, in 1992 FAA developed a centralized process to determine, set priorities for, and fund its technical training needs. This centralized process is intended to ensure that funds are first allocated for the training that is essential to fulfilling FAA’s mission. In accordance with this process, each FAA entity has developed a needs assessment manual tailored to the entity’s activities and training needs. In addition, FAA is also providing training through such alternative methods as computer-based instruction, interactive classes televised via satellite, and computer-based training materials obtained from manufacturers. Although these initiatives can help improve the efficiency of FAA’s training programs, we testified in 1996 that the adequacy of inspector training continues to be a concern. During the course of our work on new airlines, we interviewed 37 FAA inspectors who were involved with the initial certification or continuing surveillance of new airlines. Although the results of these interviews are not projectable to the universe of inspectors, they do indicate a continuing concern among FAA safety inspectors about the adequacy of the training they receive. Sixteen of the inspectors said they had gaps in training that affected their effectiveness in doing their jobs. For example, one inspector requested training on Airbus aircraft when the airline he inspected began using that aircraft, but he did not receive the training until 2 years after the airline went out of business. In another case, a maintenance inspector told us he was responsible for inspecting several commuter airlines but had never attended maintenance training school for the types of aircraft he inspects. Instead, FAA sent the maintenance inspector to training on Boeing 727s and composite materials, which were not related to the aircraft he was responsible for. Finally, several inspectors told us that despite their responsibility to approve global positioning system receivers, a navigational system increasingly being used in aircraft, they have had no formal training on this equipment. We also reported that in fiscal years 1993 through 1996, decreases in FAA’s overall budget have significantly reduced the funding available for technical training. FAA’s overall training budget decreased from $147 million to $85 million (42 percent) during this period. FAA’s reduced funding for technical training has occurred at a time when it had received congressional direction to hire over 230 additional safety inspectors in fiscal year 1996. Because new staff must be provided with initial training to prepare them to perform their duties effectively, the cost of this training, combined with overall training budget reductions, may further constrain FAA’s ability to provide training to its existing inspectors in the future. The Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA) requires that executive agencies prepare an annual statement on the adequacy of internal controls based on assessments conducted in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123. FMFIA and the circular require that the agency’s annual statement on internal controls include a description of any material weaknesses (and related plans for corrective actions) identified as part of the internal control assessment process. Under OMB Circular A-123, agency managers are requested to use Inspector General reviews and GAO reports to help them identify and correct deficiencies in management controls. In addition, the circular states that the agency should pay particular attention to the views of the agency’s Inspector General in identifying and assessing the relative importance of deficiencies in management controls. According to OMB’s guidelines, management control weaknesses are material when the weaknesses meet one or more of the following criteria, among others: Weaknesses are significant enough to be reported to the President or the Congress; resources are not being used consistently with the agency’s mission; reliable and timely information is not being obtained, maintained, reported, and used for decision-making; and a failure to report a known deficiency may reflect adversely on the agency. In December 1993, the DOT Inspector General stated that FAA’s oversight and inspection program represented both a material weakness and a high-risk area reportable to the President and the Congress. The Inspector General cited several GAO and Inspector General reports as the basis for this conclusion and identified the need for FAA to (1) target inspection resources to areas posing the greatest risks, (2) accomplish planned/targeted inspections, (3) perform quality inspections, (4) record deficiencies and ensure that they are corrected, (5) resolve inspection staff imbalances and retrain or refocus inspectors where necessary, and (6) enforce certification requirements relating to aviation parts. The Secretary of Transportation’s 1993 FMFIA report to the President stated that the DOT Inspector General and GAO had identified deficiencies in some program areas administered by the FAA (e.g., Aviation Inspection and Airport Security) and that, taken as a whole, the deficiencies that were identified may constitute “material weaknesses” in a “high-risk” area. The report, however, did not identify FAA’s oversight and inspection program as a “high-risk” area. The Secretary stated that FAA was actively reviewing all of the issues within the context of FMFIA reporting requirements and that these issues would be reflected in future FMFIA reports, as appropriate. In December 1994, the Inspector General again identified FAA’s aviation oversight and inspection activities as a “high-risk” area and recommended that the Secretary of Transportation include FAA’s safety oversight and inspection activities as a “high-risk” area in DOT’s 1994 FMFIA Report to the President and the Congress. The FAA Administrator, however, disagreed with the Inspector General’s position, stating that there was an insufficient basis to conclude that the FAA’s safety and inspection program was a “material weakness” as defined by FMFIA. The Secretary of Transportation’s 1994 FMFIA report to the President stated that he continued to be concerned about ensuring that the aviation oversight and inspection program meets the highest standards, but did not designate this program as “high risk,” concluding that no new areas of “material weakness” were reported that year. For 1995, the DOT Inspector General did not specifically cite FAA’s aviation oversight and inspection activities in her December 1995 letter to the Secretary on FMFIA issues. However, she stated that past and ongoing work indicated that significant management weaknesses existed in many of the Department’s safety programs and recommended that safety oversight be reflected in the Secretary’s FMFIA report as a “problem area.” An official of the DOT Inspector General’s office told us that a “problem area” is not as serious a designation as a “high risk” or “material weakness.” The Secretary’s 1995 FMFIA report, however, did not discuss safety oversight. Beginning August 1, 1996, OMB no longer requires agencies to designate “high-risk” areas in their FMFIA reports. Agencies will still be required, however, to report any “material weaknesses” in their internal controls. However, as discussed in the following section, DOT and FAA have recently undertaken a number of initiatives that, taken together, have the potential to address these concerns. In a May 14, 1996, memorandum for the President, the Secretary of Transportation outlined several initiatives to strengthen FAA’s inspection operations. These initiatives included accelerating the hiring of additional aviation safety inspectors; examining FAA’s computer systems and developing a comprehensive strategy for upgrading FAA’s computer tracking and data systems; and conducting a comprehensive review of FAA’s inspection operations, including reviewing inspector training and work assignments. Between May 28 and June 7, 1996, FAA’s Flight Standards Service conducted a self-assessment that looked at various issues, including the effectiveness of inspector training. A number of recommendations to improve training resulted from the process, including defining requirements for the currency and recurrent training needs of safety inspectors. FAA plans to implement all of these recommendations within 2 years. On June 18, 1996, the FAA Administrator initiated a safety review on “lessons learned” from FAA’s oversight experience with ValuJet—the FAA 90 Day Safety Review. On September 16, 1996, FAA’s Deputy Administrator issued a report that addressed the certification of new airlines, resource targeting to address safety risks, newly certificated airlines’ operations and growth, contracting out, inspector training and guidance material, and inspector resources. The report made over 30 recommendations and included proposed implementation strategies. For example, the report noted that FAA could improve its resource targeting to address safety risks and that the only way to significantly improve aviation safety is through changing FAA’s methods of assessing risk and using new analysis techniques on more complete data. The report said that using systems such as SPAS will allow FAA to more effectively use inspection, surveillance, and enforcement resources where they are most likely to improve safety. While recognizing that the inspector workforce is central to FAA’s ability to ensure compliance and maintain a high level of safety, the report also acknowledged that inspector levels have historically been understaffed. It also recognized that FAA’s training programs do not always provide the frequency of training or meet the specific needs identified by employees, managers, and industry. It included recommendations to ensure that FAA’s resources and training are adequate to meet safety requirements. As noted in the 90 Day Safety Review, an effective inspection program requires a stable source of financing. The recently signed Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 creates a National Civil Aviation Review Commission that will analyze financial needs and safety trends and make specific recommendations for change. Recent experience with the lack of authority to collect aviation excise taxes underscores the need to develop a long-term financing solution for FAA that will ensure adequate funding of aviation inspectors and required training. Similarly, the report concluded that no guidance directs FAA to maintain heightened surveillance during a new airline’s formative years, when it may be the most unstable. The report recommended heightened levels of surveillance of newly certificated airlines during the first 5 years of the companies’ operations and periodic reviews of new airlines that assess management, financial, and operational capabilities. The Administrator endorsed the recommendations and called for the development of a strategy and timetable to implement the recommended actions. Once implemented, he wrote, these actions will enhance FAA’s ability to target resources more strategically and to respond more rapidly to changes in the aviation industry. Following the crash of TWA Flight 800 on July 25, 1996, the President established a commission headed by the Vice President (commonly known as the Gore Commission) to review aviation security and safety. The Commission is scheduled to issue its final report early next year. In our opinion, these initiatives, taken together, have the potential to address several of FAA’s long-standing problems. DOT regularly publishes certain consumer-related information on individual airlines—such as information on on-time performance and lost luggage. Consumer advocates, academics, and some Members of Congress have expressed an interest in having FAA publish airline-specific safety data. The aviation system safety indicators that FAA already publishes, such as accident rates, incident rates, near mid-air collisions, and pilot deviations, are aggregated rather than published on an individual airline basis. The FAA Administrator and other FAA officials have raised concerns about the potential negative effect of publishing airline-specific safety data. For example, under the Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) initiative, FAA is encouraging the airlines to monitor and analyze flight data recorder information to determine aviation system weaknesses before they become incidents or accidents. Because the airlines might react negatively to how such data would be used, FAA officials have said that airlines might be hesitant to share such information, which would impair FAA’s efforts to improve the system’s overall safety. We recognize FAA’s desire to obtain such information from the airlines on a voluntary basis. However, FAA’s mission to promote air safety argues that it should have access to whatever data that can help it to better improve air safety. If the airlines do not choose to share such data voluntarily, FAA could pursue the appropriate regulatory or legislative remedies to gain such access. Before publishing airline-specific safety data, FAA would need to address a number of issues. First, FAA would need to develop a consensus among the affected and interested parties (airlines, passengers, aviation safety system analysts, etc.) on the most appropriate criteria for measuring airline safety performance. Second, FAA would need to gather and analyze the data and develop a monitoring system to verify the completeness and accuracy of the data. Third, FAA would need to take appropriate measures, including enforcement actions, where necessary to ensure that airlines comply with data requirements. While such an endeavor is a formidable task, the benefits could be substantial. It would not only allow FAA to publicly disclose airline-specific safety data to help the public in making transportation decisions but, just as importantly, better equip FAA to identify and preemptively act on emerging aviation safety trends. FAA’s current effort to develop a strategy to improve the quality of SPAS databases is an important step that can help solidify the foundation on which an airline-specific safety analysis and a public reporting system would potentially be based. New airlines face a formidable challenge in beginning and sustaining operations, managing growth, and developing their management and maintenance infrastructures. The recent disclosures about ValuJet and FAA’s oversight of this airline reinforce this point. Our analysis of new airlines over a 5-year period shows that, on average, they experienced higher rates of incidents and FAA-initiated enforcement actions than established airlines, particularly during their early years of operations. While such information can be useful for better targeting FAA’s inspection resources, it does not mean that new airlines are unsafe. FAA’s policies that were in effect during the period of our review did not call for new airlines to be monitored any differently from established airlines, and actual inspection rates varied widely among new airlines—some airlines with high incident and enforcement action rates were being inspected less frequently than airlines with few or no such problems. We believe that the basic challenges of starting a new airline, and the overall results of our analysis, argue for closely monitoring the performance of new airlines during their first several years of operations and conducting increased or comprehensive inspections of those airlines with elevated rates of safety-related concerns. The recent disclosures about ValuJet reinforce this argument. FAA’s 90 Day Safety Review recommended heightening the level of surveillance of newly certificated airlines for at least the first 5 years of the airlines’ operations. This recommendation is consistent with our observations and, if properly implemented, would largely address our concerns in this area. On a broader scale, serious problems that hamper the effectiveness of FAA’s aviation safety inspection program have remained unresolved for nearly a decade. While FAA has taken steps to better target its inspection resources and has evaluated safety inspector training and work assignments, concerns in those areas have persisted for years and a number of unresolved issues remain. DOT and FAA have recently undertaken a number of initiatives to address these and other problems, with the FAA 90 Day Safety Review making over 30 recommendations for improvement. We believe that these initiatives have the potential to significantly improve FAA’s inspection program, but only if they are effectively implemented. We believe that, to be effective, DOT’s and FAA’s implementation strategy must be underpinned by (1) clear goals and objectives with measurable performance elements, (2) a monitoring and evaluation element to measure progress, and (3) a reporting mechanism to keep the Secretary of Transportation and the Congress informed about progress and problems. Resource constraints resulting from budgetary reductions in such areas as safety inspector training provides a continuing challenge for FAA. Evaluating the use of and managing existing resources as efficiently as possible is important given the current tight budget situation. Such evaluations could also provide the basis for reprogramming funds to meet critical safety-related needs, or to justify the need for additional resources should they be found necessary. Public concern about the safety of the nation’s aviation system has escalated over the last several months as a result of the ValuJet and TWA crashes, and several groups have expressed interest in having FAA publish airline-specific safety data. While FAA would have to address a number of issues—including gaining consensus on safety parameters, obtaining and verifying data, and ensuring that airlines comply with requirements—before publishing such data, we believe that the time has come for FAA to begin the process that can lead to publishing such data. One step in this process would involve NTSB’s and FAA’s ongoing effort to refine the definition of accident, but the completion date for this effort has not been established. We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation instruct the Administrator of FAA to (1) closely monitor the performance of new airlines, particularly during the early years of operations, and conduct increased and/or comprehensive inspections of those new airlines that experience elevated rates of safety-related problems; (2) evaluate the impact of recent budget reductions on FAA’s critical safety-related functions, including—but not limited to—inspector training, and report the results to the Congress through the appropriations process; and (3) study the feasibility of developing measurable criteria for what constitutes aviation safety, including those airline-specific safety-related performance measures that could be published for use by the traveling public. Furthermore, to ensure the timely and effective implementation of the recommendations included in FAA’s 90 Day Safety Review, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation require the Administrator of FAA to establish (1) clear goals and objectives addressing the safety review’s identified problem areas; (2) measurable performance criteria to assess how the goals and objectives are being met; and (3) a monitoring, evaluation, and reporting system so that FAA’s implementation of the recommendations contained in FAA’s 90 Day Safety Review can be reported to the Secretary and the Congress on a regular basis. We also recommend that the Chairman of NTSB and the Administrator of FAA jointly establish a date for completing the ongoing reevaluation of the definition of accident. DOT and FAA generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. However, they raised concerns about the statistical foundation of the report. Specifically, they noted that the number of accidents, incidents, and departures for new airlines is small in comparison to the number for established airlines and produces substantial negative bias in comparing accident and incident rates for new and established airlines. We agree that accident and incident rates based on relatively few departures are susceptible to large fluctuations and may not accurately predict longer-term performance, and we have noted that prominently in the report. However, our calculations included 100 percent of these events and not just a sample and therefore show the actual rates as of the period of our analysis. The analysis that is of concern to DOT and FAA provides additional evidence on how FAA might want to target inspection resources and, therefore, does not impact any of our conclusions or recommendations. We have made a number of changes to the report on the basis of the events that have occurred since the draft was provided to DOT for comment on September 6, 1996, as well as DOT’s written comments. Most notable among these events was FAA’s publication of its 90 Day Safety Review on September 16, 1996. That review confirmed the validity of the major issues discussed in our report—the need to closely monitor the performance of new airlines during their early years of operations, as well as the need to better target FAA’s resources, improve data quality, and ensure that FAA’s resources and training programs are adequate to meet safety requirements. Our September 6, 1996, draft of this report contained a proposed recommendation calling for FAA’s aviation safety inspection program to be designated an area of material weakness in DOT’s Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act report. In light of the fact that FAA’s 90 Day Safety Review recognized the long-standing concerns that gave rise to our proposed recommendation and made over 30 recommendations that, if properly implemented, have the potential to correct these problems, we have deleted that recommendation from our final report. However, we believe there is a need for continued vigilance on the part of DOT, FAA, and the Congress to ensure that the recommendations in the 90 Day Safety Review are effectively implemented in a timely manner. Consequently, we have added a recommendation that calls for FAA to report periodically to the Secretary of Transportation and the Congress on its progress in implementing the recommendations from the 90 Day Safety Review. A copy of DOT’s comments is included as appendix III. We conducted our review from August 1995 through September 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government audit standards. A detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and methodology appears in appendix I. We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, FAA; the Chairman, NTSB; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available on request. This report was prepared under the direction of John H. Anderson, Jr., Director, Transportation Issues, who can be reached at (202) 512-2834 if you have any questions. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. The former Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, asked us to examine, as the second segment of work addressing issues concerning the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) oversight of new airlines, the agency’s efforts to ensure that new airlines meet safety standards. As agreed with the Subcommittee’s staff, we also addressed this report to the current Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on Aviation. To address this issue, we focused on three questions: Did new airlines perform differently from established airlines during the 5-year period between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 1994, with regard to accidents, incidents, and enforcement actions? At what frequency does FAA inspect new airlines compared with established airlines? And what impediments hinder the effectiveness of FAA’s overall safety inspection program? Before we were able to answer the first question, we had to determine which airlines were “new airlines.” We defined a new airline as one that provided scheduled domestic air service for 5 or fewer years at any time from the beginning of 1990 to the end of 1994. For example, an airline that began service in 1994 would be considered a new airline, since its first year of operations was within the study period. Similarly, an airline that began operating in 1986 would also be considered a new airline in our analysis of 1990 data, because that airline’s fifth year of operations occurred in 1990. However, beginning with the analysis of 1991 data, that same airline’s operations would then be included in the comparison group of established airlines—those that had provided scheduled domestic service for more than 5 years during the 1990-94 period. Thus, we considered any airline that began scheduled operations between January 1986 and December 1994 to be a new airline during relevant portions of the 1990-94 period. This definition of new airline differs from that normally applied in other aviation safety research. Those studies have tended to define new airlines as being airlines that began interstate operations following the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. However, airlines such as Southwest Airlines that began interstate operations immediately after that act have now been operating for nearly two decades. We believe that a review that focuses more on airlines with considerably fewer years of experience would provide more insight into the safety performance of new airlines. We discussed our definition of new airlines with FAA, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), none of whom raised any objection or concern. To determine which specific airlines should be designated as new airlines and which should be designated as established airlines, we reviewed records from DOT’s Airline Fitness Division within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), and FAA to develop a list of airlines subdivided into large and commuter new airlines and large and commuter established airlines. First, we obtained historical information from OST’s files on airlines that it had found “fit” and to which DOT had issued operating authority. We initially included as new airlines those that OST had recertificated following a substantial change in their operations. Second, we used industry financial and operating records from BTS to help determine the year in which airlines began scheduled operations, and divided the airline list into “new” and “established” by the year indicated in the records. Because none of the automated databases we analyzed recorded any specific distinction between scheduled commuter airlines and on-demand air taxi services (i.e., chartered airlines), we relied on FAA officials to provide this distinction. As a result, we eliminated on-demand airlines from our list. However, some commuters that operated as both commuters and on-demand airlines at different points during our 5-year period are included among our group of established commuters. BTS and FAA verified our airline lists. At FAA’s suggestion, we made two additional adjustments to our list of new airlines. First, we reclassified as established airlines those airlines that DOT had newly authorized to provide scheduled service at some point between 1986 and 1994 but which had earlier operated as on-demand air taxis. Second, we reclassified as established airlines those that DOT had recertificated following a substantial change of operations. FAA suggested that those airlines should be considered established because they had essentially maintained an unbroken chain of operations from a previous status. To determine which airlines to categorize as “large” or as “commuters,” we analyzed information from OST, BTS, and FAA. OST and BTS use definitions of large and commuter aircraft that differ from FAA’s. According to DOT’s regulations, a large certificated airline is one that holds a certificate issued under section 401 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and that operates aircraft designed to have a maximum passenger seating capacity of more than 60 seats or a maximum payload capacity of more than 18,000 pounds, or that conducts international operations. Small certificated airlines and commuter airlines (“commuters”) generally operate only aircraft with 60 seats or fewer or a payload capacity of 18,000 pounds or less. FAA’s definitions follow the distinction made by parts 121 and 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, which basically define an aircraft as “large” or as a “commuter” depending upon whether or not it seats more than 30 passengers. While we relied on FAA to indicate exactly which airlines it considered to be commuters, our distinction between large and commuter airlines was also consistent with DOT’s definitions. This occurred because FAA’s list of commuter airlines included not just those that operated “part 135” aircraft exclusively, but also airlines that operated “part 121” aircraft (“split certificate” airlines). According to information from FAA, those airlines’ part 121 aircraft were turboprop aircraft, such as the De Havilland Dash-8, that may seat between 36 and 56 passengers. FAA’s list of large airlines included only airlines that exclusively operated large aircraft. Most of those large airlines operated jet aircraft in 1994. As a result, we analyzed data for all new airlines and established airlines that provided scheduled domestic service during the 1990 through 1994 period and that reported data to DOT. We excluded air taxis and other airlines providing nonscheduled service. Our universe of 265 airlines comprised 29 new large airlines, 60 large established airlines, 50 new commuters, and 123 established commuters. During the review period, 20 new airlines reached their sixth year of operations and were then analyzed as established airlines. To answer the first question regarding the airlines’ experiences with accidents, incidents, and enforcement actions, we analyzed three different sets of data. First, to analyze data on all airline accidents that occurred from 1990 through 1994, we reviewed information from NTSB, the official source of information on airline accidents. Some of NTSB’s accident data included ambiguous information about the airline operator’s identity. To resolve the uncertainty, we reviewed more extensive information on each accident in question. Still, of the 201 accidents that occurred from 1990 through 1994, for 8 accidents we were unable to determine with certainty which company operated the aircraft involved. For example, NTSB’s files include information on a commuter airline accident in January 1991 involving US Air Express. However, more than one airline company conducts business as US Air Express, and because NTSB did not record the airline’s designator code, which FAA assigns to individual operators, we were unable to assign the accident to any specific company. Second, we analyzed FAA’s data on aviation incidents that occurred during the period. FAA records data on various airline incidents, which the agency defines as an occurrence other than an accident associated with the operation of an aircraft, that affects or could affect the safety of operations. To improve the data’s reliability and the relevance of the analysis, we excluded certain categories of incidents clearly outside the control of the airline, such as birds’ being ingested into jet engines and lightning strikes. We made these changes at the suggestion, and with the assistance, of FAA. Third, we analyzed data on enforcement investigations initiated from FAA’s Enforcement Information System (EIS). EIS includes information on all enforcement actions taken by FAA, whether administrative or legal. FAA’s Assistant Chief Counsel processes reports requiring legal enforcement action or referral for possible criminal investigation and prosecution. Because such actions may take years to conclude (for example, FAA closed its last enforcement actions against Eastern Air Lines in August 1995, although Eastern ceased operations in January 1992), we used the actions initiated to measure enforcement activity. We did not assess the reliability of the incident or enforcement data. However, we discussed the issue with FAA officials, who told us that while there may be omissions in these data, they were the best available for the purposes of our review. For example, the officials told us that although FAA’s incident data may be subject to some underreporting, those data were preferable to NTSB’s airline safety incident data, because NTSB exercises great discretion in deciding which events to investigate. Similarly, the data on the number of enforcement actions initiated, while complete, may be underreported because of differences in how FAA field offices implement the agency’s enforcement program. That is, confronted with similar sets of factual circumstances, some field offices may recommend that FAA initiate an enforcement action while others would not. To provide the basis for comparing the number of accidents, incidents, and enforcement actions across airlines, we divided all such data points by a base of 100,000 (domestic) departures, a common comparative measure of aviation safety. According to FAA and NTSB, since most accidents occur during arrival or departure, the number of departures is considered to be the best normalizing variable. We obtained the departure data from BTS, which received those data directly from individual airlines. However, we did not independently verify the data sent by the airlines or review BTS’ procedures for handling those data. Also, in our calculations of the various rates for each group of airlines, we included data on accidents, incidents, and enforcement actions only if an airline also reported departure data for that year. For example, Eastern Air Lines stopped reporting departure data to BTS in 1991; however, FAA’s data indicate that it initiated an enforcement action against Eastern in 1992. Our calculations of the enforcement rate for large established airlines did not include that 1992 action against Eastern. We analyzed accidents, incidents, and enforcement actions of new airlines by years of operating experience. Such an analysis compares the records of airlines with the same number of years of operations, regardless of the calendar year in which the observation occurred. For example, we compared airlines within their second year of operations, whether that year was 1990 or 1993, against those with fewer and more years of experience. This method focuses on examining the airline’s records over time, as the airlines gain operating experience. To answer the second question on the relative level of surveillance applied to new airlines and established airlines during the 1990-94 period, we compared the number of inspections of new airlines to the number of inspections of established airlines, normalized for departures in each year. We obtained those data from FAA’s Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem (PTRS). We have long reported on problems with the data in FAA’s safety inspection management system. Because of continuing concerns about the reliability of the data on inspection results, we used the PTRS data only to determine the number of inspections done, and not their outcomes. We also reviewed the national program guidelines for airline surveillance and spoke to responsible FAA officials to determine whether FAA distinguished between new and established airlines in its surveillance and inspection efforts. To answer the third question, we reviewed GAO products, both reports and testimonies published over the last decade, reporting on many aspects of FAA’s aviation safety inspection program. To assess FAA’s progress in addressing the problems that were discussed in those reports and testimonies, we reviewed documentation that monitors the extent of FAA’s implementation of GAO’s recommendations. After completing our analysis, we discussed our preliminary findings with officials of FAA and NTSB. We also provided a draft of our report to DOT for its review and comment. The agency’s letter in response is reproduced in appendix III. We performed our work primarily at FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C., from August 1995 through September 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Aviation Safety: Targeting and Training of FAA’s Safety Inspector Workforce (GAO/T-RCED-96-26, Apr. 30, 1996). FAA Budget: Issues Related to the Fiscal Year 1996 Request (GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-95-131, Mar. 13, 1995). Aviation Safety: Data Problems Threaten FAA Strides on Safety Analysis System (GAO/AIMD-95-27, Feb. 8, 1995). Aviation Safety: FAA Can Be More Proactive in Promoting Aviation Safety (GAO/T-RCED-95-81, Jan. 12, 1995). Aviation Safety: FAA’s Efforts to Improve Oversight of Foreign Carriers (GAO/T-RCED-95-33, Oct. 4, 1994). FAA Technical Training (GAO/RCED-94-296R, Sept. 26, 1994). Aviation Safety: Unresolved Issues Involving U.S.-Registered Aircraft (GAO/RCED-93-135, June 18, 1993). Aircraft Maintenance: FAA Needs to Follow Through on Plans to Ensure the Safety of Aging Aircraft (GAO/RCED-93-91, Feb. 26, 1993). Aviation Safety: Increased Oversight of Foreign Carriers Needed (GAO/RCED-93-42, Nov. 20, 1992). Aviation Safety: Additional Actions Needed for Three Safety Programs (GAO/T-RCED-92-90, Aug. 4, 1992). Aviation Safety: Commuter Airline Safety Would Be Enhanced With Better FAA Oversight (GAO/T-RCED-92-40, Mar. 17, 1992). Aviation Safety: Better Oversight Would Reduce the Risk of Air Taxi Accidents (GAO/T-RCED-92-27, Feb. 25, 1992). Aviation Safety: FAA Needs to More Aggressively Manage Its Inspection Program (GAO/T-RCED-92-25, Feb. 6, 1992). Aviation Safety: Air Taxis—The Most Accident-Prone Airlines—Need Better Oversight (GAO/RCED-92-60, Jan. 21, 1992). Aviation Safety: Problems Persist in FAA’s Inspection Program (GAO/RCED-92-14, Nov. 20, 1991). Aviation Safety: Emergency Revocation Orders of Air Carrier Certificates (GAO/RCED-92-10, Oct. 17, 1991). Aging Aircraft Maintenance: Additional FAA Oversight Needed (GAO/T-RCED-91-84, Sept. 17, 1991). Aircraft Maintenance: Additional FAA Oversight Needed of Aging Aircraft Repairs (GAO/RCED-91-91A and B, May 24, 1991). Aviation Safety: Limited Success Rebuilding Staff and Finalizing Aging Aircraft Plan (GAO/RCED-91-119, Apr. 15, 1991). Serious Shortcomings in FAA’s Training Program Must Be Remedied (GAO/T-RCED-90-86, June 6, 1990). Staffing, Training, and Funding Issues for FAA’s Major Work Forces (GAO/T-RCED, 90-42, Mar. 14, 1990). Aging Aircraft: FAA Needs Comprehensive Plan to Coordinate Government and Industry Actions (GAO/RCED-90-75, Dec. 22, 1989). Aviation Safety: FAA’s Safety Inspection Management System Lacks Adequate Oversight (GAO/RCED-90-36, Nov. 13, 1989). Meeting the Aging Aircraft Challenge: Status and Opportunities (GAO/T-RCED-90-2, Oct. 10, 1989) and (GAO/T-RCED-89-67, Sept. 27, 1989). Aviation Training: FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors Are Not Receiving Needed Training (GAO/RCED-89-168, Sept. 14, 1989). Aviation Safety: FAA Has Improved Its Removal Procedures for Pilot Examiners (GAO/RCED-89-199, Sept. 8, 1989). FAA Staffing: Recruitment, Hiring, and Initial Training of Safety-Related Personnel (GAO/RCED-88-189, Sept. 2, 1988). Aviation Safety: Measuring How Safely Individual Airlines Operate (GAO/RCED-88-61, Mar. 18, 1988). Aviation Safety: Needed Improvements in FAA’s Airline Inspection Program Are Under Way (GAO/RCED-87-62, May 19, 1987). Department of Transportation: Enhancing Policy and Program Effectiveness Through Improved Management (GAO/RCED-87-3, Apr. 13, 1987). Compilation and Analysis of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Inspection of a Sample of Commercial Air Carriers (GAO/RCED-85-157, Aug. 2, 1985). 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 safety performance of new airlines having 5 or fewer years of operating experience, focusing on: (1) the frequency with which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspects new airlines compared with its inspections of established airlines; and (2) FAA efforts to correct long-standing problems that limit the effectiveness of its safety inspection program. GAO found that: (1) although data regarding airline accidents and FAA incident and enforcement actions require cautious interpretation, it appeared that, for the review period of 1990 through 1994, new airlines had higher rates of accidents, incidents, and FAA enforcement actions than established airlines during their early years of operations; (2) FAA officials theorized that new airlines may experience more incidents because their fleets expand faster than their ability to absorb growth, train staff, and maintain fleets; (3) FAA national inspection guidelines that were in effect during the review period did not target new airlines for increased surveillance; (4) no clear pattern in the inspection rates distinguished airlines with relatively high rates of incidents and enforcement actions from those that had few or no problems; (5) FAA aviation safety inspection program shortcomings include insufficient inspector training, inadequate aviation safety databases, and the need to improve the oversight of aging aircraft; (6) FAA actions to better target its inspection resources to areas with the greatest safety risks remain incomplete; and (7) initiatives to accelerate the hiring of safety inspectors, strengthen FAA data collection and tracking systems, review FAA inspection operations, and conduct a safety review have the potential to significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the FAA safety inspection program. |
U.S. death rates from liver cancer have risen steadily since 2000, resulting in the disease going from the ninth-leading cause of cancer death to the sixth, a new report finds.
The change comes as U.S. cancer death rates overall — meaning rates for all combined cancers — have declined since 1990, according to the report, published today (July 17) by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But from 2000 to 2016, liver cancer death rates in adults ages 25 and up rose 43 percent, from 7.2 deaths per 100,000 people in 2000 to 10.3 deaths per 100,000 people in 2016, the report found. The rates increased for both men and women; however, the death rates for men were 2 to 2.5 times higher than the rates for women throughout the study period. [10 Do's and Don'ts to Reduce Your Risk of Cancer]
Death rates for other cancers — such as lung, colon and breast cancers — have fallen thanks to lower rates of people getting these cancers, as well as better ways to detect and treat these cancers, said Dr. Jeffrey Drebin, chair of the Department of Surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and a liver cancer surgeon. Drebin was not involved with the new report.
Liver cancer, however, hasn't seen similar improvements, Drebin told Live Science. For example, the rates of people getting liver cancer haven't changed much, and the disease is still difficult to detect and, in many cases, treat.
Drebin noted that although the rates of liver cancer due to some causes — such as hepatitis B, a viral infection that causes inflammation of the liver — have decreased, the rates of the disease due to other causes — including obesity-related cirrhosis, or scarring of the liver — have gone up. Therefore, the rates of people getting liver cancer due to different causes are "probably balanced out," he said.
What's more, even though new drugs are available to treat hepatitis C, another viral infection that causes liver inflammation, these drugs "may not prevent the eventual development of liver cancer," Drebin said.
Liver cancer death rates were the highest in adults ages 75 and up during the entire study period, the report found. Death rates rose for adults in this age group during the study period, as well as for adults ages 65 to 74 and adults ages 55 to 64. Adults ages 45 to 54 saw an increase in death rates from 2000 to 2005, followed by a decrease in rates from 2012 to 2016. Liver cancer death rates for adults ages 25 to 44 did not change during the study period.
Drebin noted that liver cancer rates rise with age because of the long-term effects of liver inflammation. (In other words, the longer a person has inflammation of the liver, the more likely that person is to develop liver cancer.)
Looking at death rates by race and ethnicity, the report found that death rates rose in Hispanic, non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white adults from 2000 to 2016. Liver cancer death rates fell for one group during the study period: non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander. This group, however, had the highest liver cancer death rate of all the groups in 2000.
The report also found that, after adjusting for age, liver cancer death rates in 2016 were the highest in Washington, D.C. (16.8 deaths per 100,000 people) and the lowest in Vermont (6 deaths per 100,000 people).
The report is based on data from the National Vital Statistics System, a database that contains death certificates from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Originally published on Live Science. ||||| NCHS Data Brief No. 314, July 2018
PDF Version (661 KB)
Jiaquan Xu, M.D.
Key findings
Data from the National Vital Statistics System, Mortality
Age-adjusted death rates for liver cancer increased 43%, from 10.5 per 100,000 U.S. standard population to 15.0 for men and 40%, from 4.5 to 6.3 for women, between 2000 and 2016.
During 2000–2016 , liver cancer death rates decreased 22% for non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander (API) adults, but increased 48% for non-Hispanic white, 43% for non-Hispanic black, and 27% for Hispanic adults.
, liver cancer death rates decreased 22% for non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander (API) adults, but increased 48% for non-Hispanic white, 43% for non-Hispanic black, and 27% for Hispanic adults. Trends in liver cancer death rates varied by age group, but increasing trends from 2000 through 2016 were observed for adults aged 65–74 and 75 and over.
and 75 and over. In 2016, among the 50 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.), D.C. had the highest death rate while Vermont had the lowest.
Liver cancer (including intrahepatic bile duct cancer) was the ninth leading cause of cancer death in 2000 and rose to sixth in 2016 (1). Although death rates for all cancer combined have declined since 1990, a recent report documented an increasing trend in liver cancer death rates during 1990–2014 (2,3). In this report, trends in liver cancer death rates are examined by sex, race and Hispanic origin, and age group from 2000 through 2016 for adults aged 25 and over. Death rates in 2016 by state and the District of Columbia (D.C.) are also presented.
Keywords: sex, intrahepatic bile duct, race and ethnicity, National Vital Statistics System
Age-adjusted liver cancer death rates increased steadily from 2000 through 2016 for both men and women aged 25 and over.
Liver cancer death rates for adults aged 25 and over increased 43% from 7.2 per 100,000 U.S. standard population in 2000 to 10.3 in 2016 Figure 1)
Liver cancer death rates increased 43% from 10.5 in 2000 to 15.0 in 2016 for men and 40% from 4.5 to 6.3 for women.
The death rate for men was between 2.0–2.5 times the rate for women throughout the period.
Figure 1. Age-adjusted death rates for liver cancer among adults aged 25 and over, by sex: United States, 2000–2016
1Significant increasing trend from 2000 to 2016 (p < 0.05).
2Significantly higher than women throughout the period (p < 0.05).
NOTES: Liver cancer deaths are identified with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, using underlying cause-of-death code C22. Access data table for Figure 1.
SOURCE: NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.
Age-adjusted death rates for liver cancer increased during 2000–2016 for non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Hispanic adults but decreased for non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander adults.
During 2000–2016 , the age-adjusted death rate for liver cancer increased 48% (6.1 per 100,000 U.S. standard population to 9.0) for non-Hispanic white adults and 43% (9.5 to 13.6) for non-Hispanic black adults Figure 2)
, the age-adjusted death rate for liver cancer increased 48% (6.1 per 100,000 U.S. standard population to 9.0) for non-Hispanic white adults and 43% (9.5 to 13.6) for non-Hispanic black adults While non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander (API) adults had the highest liver cancer death rates during 2000–2014 among the four race and Hispanic-origin groups, this group experienced the only decrease (22%), from 17.5 in 2000 to 13.6 in 2016.
The liver cancer death rate increased 27% from 11.5 in 2000 to 14.6 in 2016 for Hispanic adults, surpassing the rate for non-Hispanic API adults in 2016.
Non-Hispanic white adults had the lowest death rate among the four racial and ethnic groups throughout the period.
Figure 2. Age-adjusted death rates for liver cancer among adults aged 25 and over, by race and ethnicity: United States, 2000–2016
1Significant decreasing trend for non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander adults from 2000 to 2016 (p < 0.05).
2Significantly higher compared with non-Hispanic white adults throughout the period (p < 0.05).
3Significant increasing trend from 2000 to 2016 (p < 0.05).
NOTES: Liver cancer deaths are identified with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, using underlying cause-of-death code C22. Access data table for Figure 2.
SOURCE: NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.
Death rates for liver cancer increased from 2000 through 2016 for age groups 65–74 and 75 and over.
For adults aged 25–44 , the rate remained essentially unchanged during 2000–2016 Figure 3)
, the rate remained essentially unchanged during For adults aged 45–54 , the rate increased 31% from 2000 to 2005, remained stable from 2005 to 2012, and then decreased 20%, from 5.5 per 100,000 population in 2012 to 4.4 in 2016.
, the rate increased 31% from 2000 to 2005, remained stable from 2005 to 2012, and then decreased 20%, from 5.5 per 100,000 population in 2012 to 4.4 in 2016. For adults aged 55–64 , the rate increased 109% from 9.3 in 2000 to 19.4 in 2013, but remained stable through 2016.
, the rate increased 109% from 9.3 in 2000 to 19.4 in 2013, but remained stable through 2016. For adults aged 65–74 , the rate increased 7%, from 18.7 in 2000 to 20.0 in 2008, and 37% from 20.0 in 2008 to 27.3 in 2016. The rate increased 35% (29.8 in 2000 to 40.2 in 2016) for adults aged 75 and over.
, the rate increased 7%, from 18.7 in 2000 to 20.0 in 2008, and 37% from 20.0 in 2008 to 27.3 in 2016. The rate increased 35% (29.8 in 2000 to 40.2 in 2016) for adults aged 75 and over. The liver cancer death rate was the highest for adults aged 75 and over, followed by age groups 65–74 , 55–64 , 45–54 , and 25–44 .
Figure 3. Death rates for liver cancer among adults aged 25 and over, by selected age groups: United States, 2000–2016
1Significant increasing trend from 2000 to 2016 (p < 0.05).
2Significant differences across all age groups throughout the period (p < 0.05).
3Significant increasing trend from 2000 to 2013 (p < 0.05), and stable trend from 2013 to 2016.
4Significant increasing trend from 2000 to 2005 (p < 0.05), stable trend from 2005 to 2012, and decreasing trend from 2012 to 2016 (p < 0.05).
NOTES: Rates are plotted on a logarithmic scale. Liver cancer deaths are identified with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, using underlying cause-of-death code C22. Access data table for Figure 3.
SOURCE: NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.
In 2016, the District of Columbia had the highest age-adjusted liver cancer death rate and Vermont had the lowest rate.
In 2016, age-adjusted death rates for liver cancer among adults were highest in D.C. (16.8 per 100,000 U.S. standard population), Louisiana (13.8), Hawaii (12.7), and Mississippi and New Mexico (12.4 each) Figure 4)
The five states with the lowest age-adjusted liver cancer death rates were Vermont (6.0), Maine (7.4), Montana (7.7), and Utah and Nebraska (7.8 each).
Figure 4. Age-adjusted death rates for liver cancer among adults aged 25 and over, by state: United States, 2016
NOTES: Liver cancer deaths are identified with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, using underlying cause-of-death code C22. Access data table for Figure 4.
SOURCE: NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.
Summary
This report provides the most recent trends in liver cancer mortality by sex, race and Hispanic origin, and age group for adults aged 25 and over. From 2000 through 2016, death rates increased significantly for both men and women, with the death rate for men between two and two and a half times the rate for women. Liver cancer death rates increased for non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Hispanic adults, but declined for non-Hispanic API adults. The rate for non-Hispanic white adults aged 25 and over was the lowest of the four race and Hispanic-origin groups from 2000 through 2016, while the rate for non-Hispanic API adults was the highest from 2000 through 2014. The death rate for Hispanic adults surpassed the rate for non-Hispanic API adults in 2016, thus becoming the highest among the four race and ethnicity groups. From 2000 to 2016, death rates for liver cancer increased significantly for age groups 65–74 and 75 and over. The rate for adults aged 45–54 initially increased, but then decreased significantly since 2012. Liver cancer death rates in 2016 varied by jurisdiction, with the lowest death rate in Vermont and the highest in D.C.
Definitions
Cause-of-death classification: Cause of death is determined based on medical information entered on death certificates filed in the United States. This information is classified and coded in accordance with the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD–10) (4).
Underlying causes of death: Defined by the World Health Organization as “the disease or injury which initiate the train of events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produce the fatal injury” (4). In the case of liver cancer deaths, the underlying cause of death is coded to C22 according to ICD–10.
Data source and methods
All data in the report are from the 2000 to 2016 mortality files from the National Vital Statistics System. The direct standardization method was used to calculate age-adjusted death rates, using the 2000 U.S. standard population aged 25 and over and age groups with 10-year intervals (5).
More than 99% of all deaths with liver cancer reported on the death certificate were to adults 25 years of age and over and, therefore, only decedents aged 25 and over were included in this analysis. Race and Hispanic origin are reported separately on the death certificate. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. A recent report has shown that, in the 1999–2011 period, deaths for the non-Hispanic API and Hispanic populations were underreported by 3% for all ages in each group (6). It was presumed that the degree of underreporting of deaths observed for the non-Hispanic API and Hispanic populations in 1999–2011 data also applied to the data for years 2012–2016. Trends in death rates were evaluated using Joinpoint Regression Program (7). A maximum of three joinpoints were allowed during the 2000–2016 period, which is the default setting. The differences between death rates were evaluated using a two-tailed z test at the 0.05 level.
About the author
Jiaquan Xu is with the National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics, Mortality Statistics Branch. The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Sally C. Curtin, who provided the content review.
References
Suggested citation
Xu JQ. Trends in liver cancer mortality among adults aged 25 and over in the United States, 2000–2016. NCHS Data Brief, no 314. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2018.
Copyright information
All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may be reproduced or copied without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated.
National Center for Health Statistics
Charles J. Rothwell, M.S., M.B.A., Director
Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Associate Director for Science
Division of Vital Statistics
Delton Atkinson, M.P.H., M.P.H., P.M.P., Director
Hanyu Ni, Ph.D., M.P.H., Associate Director for Science
Save Print Close
Save Print Close
Save Print Close | Mortality for all cancers combined has gone down for US adults—but between 2000 and 2016, death rates from liver cancer went up 43%, according to a new CDC report. The cancer itself isn't getting any deadlier—the increase in mortality rates is due to more people developing the disease, CNN reports. Liver cancer is caused by underlying liver disease more than 70% of the time, and factors including obesity, smoking, and excessive drinking increase one's risk for liver disease. So do hepatitis B and C infections, and one cancer researcher believes the prevalence of hepatitis C in the baby boomer community, as well as a rise in excess body weight, is behind the increase in people dying from liver cancer. As the author of the report explains, blood transfusions and organ transplants were not screened for hepatitis C until 1992, and it often takes years for someone infected with hepatitis C to develop liver cancer. So it makes sense that older people who got blood transfusions or an organ transplant prior to 1992 are now experiencing more cases of liver cancer; mortality was greatest in those 75 or older. But the opioid epidemic could also be contributing, according to one oncologist, since hepatitis C can be spread by sharing needles. Liver cancer is now the sixth-leading cause of cancer death, up from the ninth, LiveScience reports. |
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We are pleased to be here today to discuss the implementation of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Issued on September 30, 1993, the order was designed to, among other things, “enhance planning and coordination with respect to both new and existing regulations.” It outlines the administration’s regulatory philosophy and principles, describes the organization of the federal regulatory system, and initiated a process to review and revise or eliminate certain existing regulations. That review process ultimately became part of the administration’s overall regulatory reform effort. The order also allocates responsibilities to both federal agencies and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in a centralized regulatory review process, and recognizes OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as the repository of expertise on regulatory issues. As the Chairman and Ranking Member of this Subcommittee requested, we focused our review on three issues: (1) the extent to which agencies are adhering to and OIRA is applying the executive order’s cost-benefit analysis requirements; (2) whether OIRA is significantly changing agencies’ proposed regulations during its review process; and (3) whether agencies are eliminating regulations and, if so, whether the elimination and revision of regulations are reducing regulatory burden. The methodology we used concerning each issue will be discussed in detail later, but in general we met with OIRA and agency officials and reviewed OIRA and agency files regarding specific regulations. such analyses, regulatory alternatives are being evaluated, and potential benefits are monetized. Our review focused on the three issues I mentioned, and as I will describe later, data limitations prevented us from fully addressing some of those issues. Agencies’ responsibilities in the executive order to assess the costs and benefits of their proposed regulations vary depending on whether the regulatory action involved is “significant” or “economically significant.” A significant regulatory action is defined in the order as any action “that is likely to result in a rule that may (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.” Any regulatory action that meets the first of these criteria is considered “economically significant.” If the action does not meet the first criterion but meets any of the other three criteria, it is considered “significant for noneconomic reasons.” said that agencies should, at a minimum, include a statement in the preamble to proposed significant regulations indicating that they considered the potential costs and benefits of the regulations during their development. “(i) An assessment, including the underlying analysis, of benefits anticipated from the regulatory action (such as, but not limited to, the promotion of the efficient functioning of the economy and private markets, the enhancement of health and safety, the protection of the natural environment, and the elimination or reduction of discrimination or bias) together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of those benefits; (ii) An assessment, including the underlying analysis, of costs anticipated from the regulatory action (such as, but not limited to, the direct cost both to the government in administering the regulation and to businesses and others in complying with the regulation, and any adverse effects on the efficient functioning of the economy, private markets (including productivity, employment, and competitiveness), health, safety, and the natural environment), together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of those costs; and (iii) An assessment, including the underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, identified by the agencies or the public (including improving the current regulation and reasonably viable nonregulatory actions), and an explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the identified potential alternatives.” OIRA officials told us that these provisions mean that agencies should provide OIRA with a copy of a cost-benefit analysis when economically significant proposed regulations are submitted to OIRA for review. However, they also said that, in practice, agencies do not do cost-benefit analyses for all economically significant proposed rules. For example, they said that it would not be worth the time and effort required for an agency to do a cost-benefit analysis for economically significant crop price support regulations based on legislated formula. increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the international competitiveness of U.S. enterprises—criteria similar to those used to describe “economically significant” rules in Executive Order 12866. Like the cost-benefit requirements in the Clinton executive order, the Reagan order said regulatory impact analyses should contain descriptions of the potential costs and benefits of the rule and of the costs and benefits of alternative approaches. To determine the extent to which agencies provide a copy of a cost-benefit analysis for each economically significant rule, we asked the Regulatory Information Service Center (RISC) to provide us with a listing of all such rules that were published in the Federal Register as final rules during calendar year 1995. RISC provided us with a listing of 39 rules that it said met those criteria. However, we discovered that 10 of these 39 rules were not economically significant and/or were not final rules, and therefore should not have been part of our analysis. regulations on the payment of covered outpatient drugs under rebate agreements with manufacturers. We reviewed OIRA’s files for each of these rules to see if they contained a cost-benefit analysis. If we could not locate the analysis in OIRA’s files, we asked OIRA staff for a copy of the analysis. For 28 of the 29 economically significant rules, a cost-benefit analysis document was either in OIRA’s files or was provided by OIRA staff. Although we did not attempt to assess the quality of the analyses conducted, the analyses for 26 of the 28 rules appeared to have all three of the elements the executive order requires—assessments of costs, benefits, and the costs and benefits of alternative approaches. One analysis covering two rules (the early- and late-season migratory bird hunting rules) appeared to lack a discussion of the costs and benefits of alternative approaches. The one economically significant final rule for which we could not find a cost-benefit analysis was issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in response to a Supreme Court decision interpreting a statutory requirement that VA provide compensation for disability or death resulting from VA hospitalization, medical or surgical treatment, or examination. The file for the rule did contain a discussion of the rule’s “costs and budgetary impact” that centered on how to calculate the overall cost of the payments. OIRA officials said that the file contained no discussion of the benefits of the payments or alternative approaches because the payments were statutorily required, and therefore the cost discussion alone met the requirements of the executive order. We also asked RISC to provide us with a list of all final rules issued in 1995 that were significant for noneconomic reasons. RISC provided a list of 259 such rules, from which we randomly selected a 10 percent sample (26 rules). Although the size of this sample prevents us from generalizing our findings to all 259 rules, the sample can demonstrate the kinds of cost-benefit “assessments” OIRA said satisfied the executive order’s requirement. benefits of the regulatory action. The remaining 14 rules contained neither a cost-benefit analysis nor language in the rule discussing the rules’ costs or benefits. OIRA officials said a cost-benefit assessment was not prepared for these 14 rules because of particular circumstances in each case. They said that some of the rules were simply implementing a detailed statutory or procedural requirement, some were essentially administrative in nature (e.g., harmonizing two existing programs in different agencies), one eliminated an outdated requirement, and one was significant only because of its relation to a larger rule. In such cases, OIRA officials said they do not recommend that agencies conduct a cost-benefit assessment because it would not contribute substantially to decisionmaking. In essence, they said, a blanket requirement that agencies conduct a cost-benefit assessment would not pass a cost-benefit test. The second major issue we were asked to address was whether OIRA is significantly changing agencies’ proposed regulations during the review process. Although we found evidence of some OIRA involvement in all of the regulations we investigated, the data available did not provide sufficient evidence to conclusively determine whether OIRA-recommended changes were made to all of the regulations. Aggregate data compiled by RISC indicate that the proportion of regulations that were changed during the time period they were under OIRA review increased substantially between 1981 and 1996, but the data do not reveal the source of those changes. OIRA and agency files and interviews with OIRA staff indicated that most of the rules that the aggregate data indicated had changed while at OIRA were changed at least in part because of suggestions or recommendations by OIRA, and most of those changes appeared significant. However, in many other cases it was unclear what changes had been made to the rules during the review process or whether OIRA had recommended those changes. Despite this lack of documentation, OIRA and agency officials said OIRA does affect the development of regulations through discussions that occur before and during the rulemaking process or simply by its presence in that process. independent regulatory agencies. The order authorized OMB to review any preliminary or final regulatory impact analysis, notice of proposed rulemaking, or final rule “based on the requirements of this Order.” OIRA’s reviews under this executive order were highly controversial, with critics contending that OIRA exerted too much control over the development of rules and that decisions were being made without appropriate public scrutiny. Executive Order 12866 requires the OIRA Administrator to “provide meaningful guidance and oversight so that each agency’s regulatory actions are consistent with applicable law, the President’s priorities, and the principles set forth in this Executive order and do not conflict with the policies or actions of another agency.” As was the case under Executive Order 12291, the current order does not authorize OIRA to review rules from independent agencies. However, instead of reviewing both major and nonmajor regulations, OIRA’s reviews are currently limited to significant regulatory actions (about 800 per year at proposed and final rulemaking). OIRA conducts those reviews before the publication of the rule in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking and before its publication as a final rule. OIRA also sometimes reviews rules prior to the proposed rulemaking stage. In general, OIRA must complete its review with an agency within 90 days of receiving the rule. One of the stated objectives of Executive Order 12866 is “to make the process more accessible and open to the public.” In conjunction with that objective, the order requires agencies to “dentify for the public those changes in the regulatory action that were made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA” after the action has been published in the Federal Register. The OIRA Administrator pointed out that requirement in guidance that was sent to the heads of departments and agencies in October 1993. the formal submission of the rules. Because of the often informal nature of this process, the OIRA Administrator suggested in her May 1994 report to the President that the order’s requirement that agencies document OIRA changes “may warrant further consideration” because “changes that result from regulatory review are the product of collegial discussions” often involving multiple agencies. She said that after such an extended process, “it is not clear that identifying changes made at the suggestion of OIRA is accurate...or meaningful.” EPA and DOT officials told us that regulations are frequently developed and changed as a result of meetings and telephone calls between agency and OIRA staff at various stages of the rulemaking process. They also said that OIRA frequently affects the development of rules in ways that may not be reflected in their or OIRA’s files. For example, DOT officials said that they will not even propose certain regulatory provisions because they know that OIRA will not find them acceptable. At the conclusion of each stage of the review process, OIRA staff complete a regulatory review worksheet that indicates whether the proposed rule was (1) “consistent (with the executive order) without change,” (2) “consistent with change,” (3) “withdrawn” by the agency, (4) “returned” by OIRA for further consideration, (5) required to be issued under a statutory or judicial deadline (thereby attenuating OIRA’s review), or (6) whether some other action was taken. OIRA does not have the authority under the executive order to disapprove regulatory actions. June 30, 1996, OIRA returned 0.2 percent (5 out of 2,366) of the rules it reviewed. The percentage of actions that fell into the “consistent with change” or “without change” categories has varied dramatically over time. For example, in 1981, 87 percent of the regulatory actions were coded “consistent without change,” and only 5 percent were coded as having been changed. However, by the first half of 1996, a greater percentage of regulatory actions were “changed” (48 percent) than were described as “consistent without change” (45 percent). Some of the difference in the degree to which rules were changed was probably due to the change in the number and type of rules that OIRA reviewed. Under Executive Order 12291, OIRA reviewed about 2,300 major and nonmajor rules per year; under Executive Order 12866, OIRA has reviewed fewer than 800 significant rules per year. However, these data do not necessarily mean that OIRA is more likely to recommend changes to proposed rules than it did in the past. OIRA staff told us that they code regulatory actions as “consistent with change” if any changes are made to the actions while under review at OIRA, regardless of their source. They said that a regulatory action could be coded as “consistent with change” even if the changes were solely at the initiative of the agency promulgating the rule. Therefore, it is unclear whether the increased rate of “changes” over time means that OIRA is increasingly asking for changes in agencies’ rules or whether agencies are more likely to submit rules as “works in progress,” making further changes to the rules while they are under review at OIRA. To better understand the nature of the changes being made to these rules, we asked RISC to provide a list of all rules that were initially submitted to OIRA for review during calendar year 1994. RISC provided a list of 319 such rules and the action taken with respect to each rule (e.g., “consistent with change” or “consistent without change”) at each stage of the rulemaking process (prerule, notice of proposed rulemaking, and final rulemaking) between their submission to OIRA in 1994 and the time we began our review in July 1996. of the rules were coded “consistent without change” throughout the process, and about 7 percent had some other type of disposition (e.g., judicial deadline, withdrawn, or returned). Major differences existed in the number of rules that changed across the agencies. For example, 40 of the 54 EPA rules submitted to OIRA in 1994 (about 74 percent) were coded “consistent with change” in at least one stage of the rulemaking process.In contrast, only 9 (30 percent) of the 30 DOT rules were coded “consistent with change” at some stage of the rulemaking process. OIRA officials said that some of the differences in the number of changes made to rules are attributable to the level of centralized review at the agencies. They said that well-developed review processes in agencies reduce the need for OIRA-suggested changes to rules. Of the 84 combined EPA and DOT rules, the RISC data indicated that 49 had changed while at OIRA, 21 were “consistent with no change,” and 14 had some other disposition. We then focused our review on the 49 rules that the aggregate data indicated had changed. We first reviewed OIRA files and interviewed OIRA staff regarding each of the rules to determine the nature of the changes made and whether the changes were made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA. We also reviewed EPA and DOT files for these rules to determine whether agencies had identified for the public the changes that were made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA. OIRA or agency files indicated that OIRA suggested changes that were made to 29 of the 49 combined EPA and DOT rules, and OIRA staff said that they had suggested changes that were made to 3 other rules. The file for one rule indicated OIRA had no suggested changes. For the remaining 16 rules, though, it was unclear whether OIRA had recommended any changes that were made to the rules. whether OIRA had recommended those changes. For example, the EPA file for one of the 16 rules for which we could not determine OIRA changes contained more than two dozen faxes, letters, memos, or other forms of communication between the EPA and OIRA officials. Many of those documents referred to changes that had been made to the rule, but it was not clear whether the changes had been suggested by OIRA. For those 29 files that we determined resulted in OIRA-suggested changes, we sometimes made those determinations by accumulating evidence from different sources or by reading notes written in the margins of documents. None of the DOT files and only a few of the EPA files contained a memo clearly documenting for the public that changes were made to the rules at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA. Therefore, we do not believe that either EPA or DOT has closely adhered to the executive order’s requirement to document changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA. As a result, the public would frequently find it difficult to determine what changes were made to regulatory actions because of OIRA. In 21 of the 32 rules for which evidence existed of OIRA-suggested changes, the changes made to the rules appeared to be substantive in nature. For example: One EPA file indicated that EPA decided to make four “significant changes” to the rule’s compliance criteria because of OMB’s comments. The changes included limiting the technical and scientific information the rule required to be submitted and reducing the list of conditions that must be monitored from seven to three. Another EPA file indicated that OMB’s comments resulted in the elimination of recordkeeping requirements from the rule and that language was added to the rule allowing waiver of certain requirements to avoid conflicts with requirements from another agency. An OIRA file indicated that DOT redrafted a rule’s implementation schedule in response to an OMB request, allowing a more gradual implementation of the rule for certain elements of the regulated community. In the other 11 rules, the changes appeared relatively minor. For example, one of the EPA files stated that the only changes made during the OMB review were “minor deletions of preamble language” and that “o substantive changes to the proposal were suggested or recommended by OMB.” The lack of documentation of OIRA changes to the rules or documentation that reflects only a relatively minor change does not necessarily mean that OIRA did not play a significant role in the development of the rules in question. As I mentioned earlier, OIRA officials told us that during this administration they work with the agencies before rules are formally submitted. These kinds of discussions may not be reflected in documents at either the agencies or OIRA. The third major issue we were asked to address was whether agencies were eliminating the regulations that the administration claimed were being eliminated, and whether the eliminations and revisions of rules were reducing regulatory burden. We found that EPA and DOT reports on the number of pages of regulations they had eliminated were generally accurate. However, because new regulations are being added at the same time that regulations are being eliminated and revised, the total number of pages of regulations may actually increase in some agencies. Available data indicate a variety of reasons why the regulations are being eliminated (e.g., because rules are outdated or are duplicative of other requirements) and revised (e.g., to clarify or update rules or to establish new procedures). Most of the page eliminations did not appear to reduce regulatory burden, but it was often unclear whether the regulatory revisions would do so. Section 5 of Executive Order 12866 required each agency to submit a program to OIRA by December 31, 1993, under which it would periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any should be modified or eliminated. According to the order, the purpose of the review was to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective, less burdensome, or better aligned with the President’s priorities and the principles in the order. entities.” In 1992, President Bush sent a memorandum to all federal departments and agencies calling for a 90-day moratorium on new proposed or final rules during which agencies were “to evaluate existing regulations and programs and to identify and accelerate action on initiatives that will eliminate any unnecessary regulatory burden or otherwise promote economic growth.” In an October 1993 memo to the heads of federal departments and agencies, the Administrator of OIRA noted that previous administrations had undertaken similar review efforts but said that some of those efforts had been “so broad in scope that necessary analytic focus has been diffused, or needed followup has not occurred.” She said the effort under the new executive order should be more productive because, among other things, “it focuses only on significant regulations and the legislation that mandates them.” In its report on the first year of implementation of the order, OIRA further clarified the intent of this effort. “It is important to emphasize what the lookback effort is and is not. It is not directed at a simple elimination or expunging of specific regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. Nor does it envision tinkering with regulatory provisions to consolidate or update provisions. Most of this type of change has already been accomplished, and the additional dividends are unlikely to be significant. Rather, the lookback provided for in the Executive Order speaks to a fundamental reengineering of entire regulatory systems....” On March 4, 1995, the President sent a memorandum to the heads of departments and agencies describing plans for changing the federal regulatory system because “not all agencies have taken the steps necessary to implement regulatory reform.” Among other things, the President directed each agency to conduct a page-by-page review of all its regulations in force and eliminate or revise those that were outdated or in need of reform. In June 1995, 28 agencies provided reports to the President describing the status of their regulatory reform efforts, often noting the number of pages of federal regulations that would be eliminated or revised. On June 12, 1995, the President told participants at the White House Conference on Small Business that the page-by-page review effort had resulted in commitments to eliminate 16,000 pages of regulations from the 140,000 page Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and another 31,000 pages would be modified either through administrative or legislative means. Since that time, agencies have periodically reported to OIRA on their progress in eliminating and revising rules. As of June 30, 1996, the agencies reported that 11,569 pages of the CFR had been eliminated (72 percent of the 16,000-page goal) and another 1,421 pages (9 percent) had been proposed for elimination. The agencies also indicated that 13,216 pages of the CFR had been “reinvented” (43 percent of the 31,000-page goal), and another 5,271 pages (17 percent) had been proposed for reinvention. Any analysis of the effect of reductions in the number of pages of regulatory text must recognize that one sentence of a regulation can impose more burden than 100 pages of regulations that are administrative in nature. Thus, the number of pages eliminated in the CFR is, at best, an indirect measure of burden reduction. Nonetheless, it is one of the measures that the administration is using to gauge its own efforts. To determine whether agencies were actually eliminating the number of pages of regulations that they claimed in their reports to OIRA, we obtained details of two agencies’ page elimination efforts—EPA’s and DOT’s.Specifically, the agencies provided us with Federal Register citations for actions related to the pages that they claimed to have eliminated as of June 30, 1996. We then reviewed those citations, confirmed that the actions were final or interim final rules, noted what CFR parts or sections they eliminated, and then counted the eliminated pages in the CFR that were designated for removal. Our analysis indicated that these agencies’ page elimination claims were generally valid. EPA claimed to have eliminated 1,292 pages from the CFR (89 percent of the 1,457 pages it had promised in its 1995 report to the President), and we counted a total of 1,230 pages that had been removed. DOT claimed to have eliminated 1,247 pages (102 percent of the 1,221 pages it had promised), and we counted 1,232 pages that had been removed. they only counted CFR changes that occurred in 1995 (primarily after their June report to the President) or 1996. However, DOT officials said they counted any regulatory elimination or revision since the start of the Clinton administration in coming up with their tally of CFR pages eliminated or revised. Officials in both agencies also said there were differences within each of the agencies in the manner in which CFR pages were counted. For example, an EPA official said that some units within EPA simply “eyeballed” the pages being eliminated, whereas other units used more sophisticated methods of measuring the number of CFR pages being removed. OIRA officials said that the administration’s goal was to eliminate 16,000 pages from the CFR as it existed at the start of the reinvention effort. They said the page elimination total does not take into account any pages that were added to the CFR during that effort, and therefore the CFR may not have 16,000 fewer pages than at the start of the administration’s effort. However, they added that many of the pages being added to the CFR are statutorily mandated regulations, not new rules developed at the initiative of regulatory agencies. The effect of pages being added to the CFR at the same time they were being eliminated can be seen at one of the agencies included in our review. An EPA official said that the agency had 14,384 pages of regulations in the CFR as of July 1, 1995. As of July 1, 1996, EPA said it had eliminated 1,292 pages in the CFR, but an EPA official told us in August 1996 that the number of pages of EPA regulations had expanded to 14,690 pages—a growth of more than 300 pages. The official said this growth was primarily driven by statutory requirements to develop new Clean Air Act regulations. energy, commerce and foreign trade, employees’ benefits, food and drugs, highways, and housing and urban development. We also attempted to assess the reasons why the page eliminations and revisions were undertaken and whether those actions appeared to reduce substantive regulatory burden. To do so, we analyzed the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which provides uniform reporting of data on regulatory activities under development throughout the federal government. The October 1995 and April 1996 editions of the Unified Agenda contained a “reinventing government” data element that indicated whether the regulatory action was part of the administration’s reinventing government effort and, if so, whether the result would be elimination of CFR text or revision of CFR text. In those entries, brief abstracts were usually included describing the action or proposed action. We discovered during our review that at least one agency (EPA) did not list all of its page elimination and revision efforts in the Unified Agenda. Nevertheless, the Unified Agenda is the most complete governmentwide compendium of those activities available. Of the 5,354 separate entries in the October 1995 and April 1996 editions of the Unified Agenda, a total of 1,562 entries had a “reinventing government” data element. Of these, 211 entries indicated that the action involved the elimination of text in the CFR, and 1,351 entries said that the action would revise text. The agencies with the most reinvention entries were DOT (212 entries), the Department of the Interior (171 entries), and the Department of Health and Human Services (165 entries). Of the 211 rule elimination entries in the Unified Agenda, only 1 was considered economically significant, and 22 were classified as significant for noneconomic reasons. Forty-three of the 1,351 revisions were considered economically significant, and 386 were considered significant for noneconomic reasons. indicated that the regulations had not been enforced for some time. For example: VA said it was eliminating a regulation providing lump-sum payments to veterans involved in an incident in Texas in 1906. The Department of Energy said it was removing regulations “related to defunct programs of financial assistance for electric and hybrid vehicle research and methane transportation research.” A proposed Department of Agriculture rule would eliminate the import licensing system for sugar exempted from an import licensing fee, which the Department said had been suspended in 1985 and eliminated on January 1, 1995. Another Department of Agriculture action removed its regulation pertaining to the Special Agricultural Workers program because “the program expired on December 1, 1988.” FDA said it was proposing to eliminate certain regulations “that refer to substances no longer used in product formulations or to products that are no longer marketed.” The abstracts also frequently indicated that CFR text was being eliminated because the requirements were duplicative of other requirements that remained in the CFR (about 28 percent of the rule elimination abstracts). The remaining 1,351 “Reinventing Government” entries indicated they would revise text in the CFR “to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.” Of these, 287 did not contain an abstract describing the nature of the reinvention effort. Of the 1,064 entries that did have an abstract, the most common reason given for the action being taken was to clarify a regulatory requirement (about 28 percent of the entries). For example: The Department of the Interior said it was rewriting its civil penalty procedures “in plain English.” The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said it was proposing to revise its regulations on confined spaces “to state more clearly the employer’s duty to ensure effective rescue capability.” The Department of the Treasury said revisions to one of its rules would “provide greater clarity by defining previously undefined terms.” The Department of Justice proposed an amendment to “clarify the requirement for installation of curb ramps at existing pedestrian walkways” in response to “public concerns about the unique and significant capital expense” of such ramps. The Department of Labor said it was giving guidance to employers on the information they must keep to determine compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act “to ensure that applicable standards are easily understandable and reasonable.” Other commonly cited reasons for the revisions were to update requirements to reflect current statutes, science, or conditions (about 26 percent); to establish new regulatory procedures or standards (about 18 percent); and to change a regulation found to be overly burdensome to industry, state or local governments, or federal agencies (about 14 percent). In 110 of the entries (about 10 percent), the changes appeared to be implementing statutory requirements. For example, one of the Department of the Treasury entries indicated that its Office of Thrift Supervision had issued an interim final rule that revised its risk-based capital standards “as required by Sections 208 and 350 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994.” In these and other cases, the revisions appeared less like “reinventions” than part of the standard rulemaking process. We also examined the Unified Agenda abstracts to determine whether the actions being announced appeared to reduce substantive regulatory burden. We defined the term “regulatory burden” broadly to include the cost of compliance, any lack of flexibility allowed by the rule, and related paperwork requirements. We also said the regulatory burden could be on industry, state or local governments, or the federal government. Although we attempted to determine as objectively as possible whether the actions described in the abstracts were likely to decrease regulatory burden, our results should be viewed as informed opinions rather than the result of rigorous analysis because (1) no commonly agreed-upon way to measure regulatory burden exists, (2) the determination of whether burden is increased or decreased by a related action is an inherently subjective process, and (3) the abstracts in the Unified Agenda sometimes provided only cursory information about the regulatory action at issue. Nevertheless, in more than 60 percent of the page elimination entries, it did not appear that the CFR pages being eliminated would reduce substantive regulatory burden. As noted previously, most of these actions were being taken because the regulations being eliminated were obsolete, and many of these did not appear to have been enforced for some time. Therefore, for these entries there did not appear to be any reduction in substantive regulatory burden. In some cases, the agencies themselves indicated that the page eliminations would not alter existing regulatory requirements, as shown in the following examples: The Department of Justice said one of its actions to eliminate obsolete sections was “editorial and non-substantive in nature and ... no impact on governmental or nongovernmental entities.” The Department of Commerce said that although an entire part within the CFR was being removed, “(t)his final rule does not make substantive changes to the existing regulations.” The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) said it was eliminating provisions that were unnecessary because they were redundant of the Mortgagee Review Board (MRB) statute, and would “not change the substantive requirements of the MRB regulations.” HUD also said it was eliminating provisions that were redundant of the Community Development Block Grant’s regulations without substantively changing the requirements. Another HUD rule removed “nearly identical provisions” in various parts of the CFR, but again HUD said it did not change the substance of the provisions. Officials from both EPA and DOT told us that at least one of the goals of their rule elimination effort was to remove “dead wood” and that no substantive regulatory burden was being eliminated in many instances. One EPA official said that no substantive regulatory burden would be eliminated by any of EPA’s rule elimination efforts. In about a quarter of the cases, the Unified Agenda abstracts did not provide enough information to allow us to determine whether the rule elimination action would reduce burden. However, 19 of the rule elimination actions (about 10 percent) appeared to reduce substantive regulatory burden. For example: The Food Safety Inspection Service proposed removal of a requirement that it approve facilities and equipment before they are used in official establishments. The agency also proposed amending its prior approval of most voluntary, plant-operated partial quality control programs. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a proposed rule to “revoke the requirement for increased frequency reports to FDA for postmarketing adverse experience reporting.” DOT proposed rescinding its standards regarding the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays, relying on market forces instead of regulatory requirements to ensure proper markings. We could not clearly determine whether substantive regulatory burden would be reduced for more than half of the 1,064 CFR revisions for which there was an abstract. In about 26 percent, the revisions did not appear to reduce burden, and in about 21 percent, the action did appear to reduce burden. Actions that did not appear to reduce substantive regulatory burden include the following: A proposal by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to permit the use of the word “unaged” as an alternative to “immature” to describe grape brandy that has not been stored in oak containers. A National Park Service proposal to “recognize an official United States Park Police insignia, provide for its future protection, and prevent the unauthorized use of the insignia.” A VA action to “update various cross-references and authority citations and to make other nonsubstantive changes.” An OSHA action to extend a general industry rule on preventing suffocation and explosions in confined spaces to the construction industry. A DOT action to correct obsolete references in field office addresses and terminology. A DOT plan to remove an appendix to a rule, which was described by the Department as an administrative action that “has no impact on the marine industry as it does not change any requirements imposed upon them.” A DOT plan to change a regulation on state matching of planning and administration costs from a regulation to an “agency directive.” DOT’s plan to remove a regulation that implemented a statutory provision for which funds have not been authorized since 1994. An EPA action implementing the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act extending training and accreditation requirements and increasing the number of training hours required, which EPA said “will increase regulatory costs” for the owners and managers of public and commercial buildings. A proposal by the Department of the Treasury to exempt depository institutions from currency transaction reporting obligations with respect to transactions with certain businesses. A Department of Justice proposal to waive a requirement for registration and allow the use of records required to be kept under FDA regulations instead of maintaining separate records for the Drug Enforcement Administration. A DOT rule permitting official filing of international air carrier rules tariffs in an electronic format. An EPA proposal to exempt certain pesticides from registration requirements and another proposal to remove isopropyl alcohol from the list of chemicals for which reporting is required under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. An EPA proposal to allow the use of a financial test rather than more expensive mechanisms such as surety bonds or letters of credit to ensure that adequate funds are available to cover certain closure costs. EPA estimated this change would save owners and operators of municipal solid waste landfills about $45 million annually. Another EPA proposal in this area would reportedly save local governments $138 million annually. Again, I would like to emphasize that our characterizations of actions that appear to reduce substantive regulatory burden and those that do not appear to reduce burden are based on a review of what was, at times, very limited information. Also, even though an action to eliminate or revise a regulation may not reduce the substantive regulatory burden imposed by that regulation, it may result in a reduction in other types of burden by making the regulation clearer or easier to find. Some of the proposed changes may also make the regulatory process more effective or results oriented, even though their effect on regulatory burden may be unclear or negligible. A final verdict regarding the value of these initiatives will have to await the reaction of the regulated community. Mr. Chairman, this completes my 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. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the implementation of Executive Order 12866, which is intended to improve regulatory planning and review. GAO noted that: (1) the extent of federal agencies' cost-benefit analyses of proposed regulations depends on whether the regulatory action is economically significant or significant for noneconomic reasons; (2) agencies are required to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) with their cost-benefit analyses of the regulatory action, but agencies often do not perform these analyses because they believe the analyses are not worth the time and effort; (3) OIRA provided cost-benefit analyses for 28 of 29 economically significant regulatory actions reviewed, but 2 of these analysis did not contain all required elements; (4) 14 significant noneconomic regulatory actions did not have cost-benefit analyses for various reasons; (5) although there was evidence of OIRA involvement in all regulations reviewed, the data was insufficient to determine whether OIRA-recommended changes were made; (6) at present, OIRA reviews are limited to only significant regulatory actions; (7) OIRA works informally with agencies during regulations' development and its influence may often be indirect and subtle; (8) for 21 of 32 rules, OIRA-suggested changes appear to have been substantive; and (9) periodic agency reviews of regulations have resulted in the elimination or revision of some regulations, but the overall regulatory burden appears not to have been significantly reduced because of regulatory obsolescence and duplication and the addition of new regulations. |
Professional weirdo James Franco is taking one of the greatest narrative moments in Twitter history and turning it into his next project. Deadline is reporting that Franco is heading up an adaptation of Zola Tells All: The Real Story Behind the Greatest Stripper Saga Ever Tweeted. The original story was written by Rolling Stone's David Kushner, and it details Aziah "Zola" Wells' insane trip to Florida for a stripping gig that quickly went south. Zola gets caught up in a web of violence, prostitution, betrayal, and kidnapping; she still finds time to relax by the pool. ("I mean, I am in Florida!") You can read the whole thing here; it's worth your time, I promise.
There are still plenty of unknowns swirling around the project, but Franco is going to produce, direct, and star in the adaptation. (The script is being written by Andrew Neel and Mike Roberts.) I can't believe I'm saying this, but if Zola's story is going to be turned into a movie — and it's been speeding toward that destiny since the second people like Ava DuVernay started tweeting about it — Franco isn't a bad choice of spirit guide. Zola's Floridian odyssey is basically the real-life version of Spring Breakers, a movie in which Franco turned in his best performance ever. He should understand the humor and hedonistic spirit this project needs to survive and thrive. I'm not completely sold, but it could be worse, right? Let's hope Zola gets the story credit she deserves. ||||| When Rolling Stone chronicled the story of a stripper named Zola who entranced the Internet with a 148-tweet yarn involving prostitution and murder, the magazine described her epic Twitter rant as reading like “Spring Breakers meets Pulp Fiction, as told by Nicki Minaj.” So it sorta makes sense that, of all the filmmakers in Hollywood, James Franco would want to tackle this particular edgy tale.
On Thursday, Variety reports that Franco is developing David Kushner’s Rolling Stone feature “Zola Tells All: The Real Story Behind The Greatest Stripper Saga Ever Tweeted” for the screen. Franco will direct from a script written by Andrew Neel and Mike Roberts, with whom he recently collaborated on the well-received Sundance drama Goat.
For those unfamiliar with Zola’s Twitter rant, it began last October, when the then 20-year-old wrote, “Okay listen up. This story long. So I met this white bitch at Hooters. . .” Zola’s story went on to chronicle a wild road trip to Florida—with her friend Jessica, Jessica’s boyfriend Jarrett, and Jessica’s violent Nigerian pimp “Z”—that involved one character jumping from a four-story window and another being murdered.
Among the well-known artists who began following Zola’s story online: Missy Elliott, Keke Palmer, Solange Knowles, and Ava DuVernay. In fact, the last was so impressed that she issued this rave review on Twitter: “Drama, humor, action, suspense, character development, there’s so much untapped talent in the hood.”
If it gives you a sense of Zola, the spunky character at the center of this fabulously gonzo story, she responded directly to the Selma director, “I’m not from the hood tho Ava. Ima suburban bitch. Still love you tho.” [sic] ||||| James Franco, Andrew Neel and Killer Films are developing a movie based on stripper Azia “Zola” Wells’ saga of a wild road trip to Florida with Franco directing.
The project is based on David Kushner’s story for Rolling Stone, published in November and titled “Zola Tells All: The Real Story Behind the Greatest Stripper Saga Ever Tweeted.”
Franco will direct from a script by Neel and Mike Roberts. Franco and Vince Jolivette are producing through their Rabbit Bandini Productions with Killer Films’ Christine Vachon and David Hinojosa, and Gigi Films’ Gia Walsh and Kara Baker.
Kushner’s story was billed as an exclusive account of Wells’ 148-tweet about her October road trip to Florida with her friend Jessica, Jessica’s boyfriend Jarrett, and Jessica’s violent Nigerian pimp “Z.”
The first tweet read, “Okay listen up. This story long. So I met this white bitch at Hooters…” The tweets include a hustler getting murdered and Jarrett leaping from a four-story window.
“It reads like ‘Spring Breakers’ meets ‘Pulp Fiction,’ as told by Nicki Minaj,” Kushner observed.
Franco, Neel and Killer Films most recently collaborated on fraternity hazing drama “Goat,” which starred Nick Jonas and was produced by Franco with Neel directing. The film premiered at Sundance and sold last week to Paramount Home Media.
CAA, which represents Franco, Neel, Killer Films, and Kushner, will represent the film’s domestic distribution rights.
Franco’s directing credits include “In Dubious Battle,” “As I Lay Dying” and the upcoming “The Disaster Artist.”
Walsh previously executive produced “The Fixer,” starring Franco and produced by Rabbit Bandini.
Franco is also represented by Untitled Entertainment and Sloane Offer; Neel is also represented by Washington Square Films. Kushner is repped by Eric Robinson and Shari Smiley of Gotham Group. ||||| On a recent night in Detroit, Aziah "Zola" Wells returned to where it all began: Hooters. As the petite 20-year-old beauty in a pink blouse and tight blue jeans clacked her high black heels past the hostess stand, a curvy bartender shouted, "Zola!" It was her first visit back since she quit her waitressing job three months earlier, not long after finding out she and her fiancé were pregnant, but that wasn't the reason for the excitement. The week before, on October 27, Zola tweeted, "Okay listen up. This story long. So I met this white bitch at Hooters…" What followed was an epic 148-tweet tale about her harrowing road trip to Florida with said "white bitch," Jessica; Jessica's maudlin boyfriend, Jarrett; and Jessica's violent Nigerian pimp, "Z". Tricks get turned, a hustler gets murdered, Jarrett leaps from a four-story window. It reads like Spring Breakers meets Pulp Fiction, as told by Nicki Minaj. "That nigga lost in the sauce," Zola wrote in one of her more popular tweets, "& that bitch lost in the game."
Related Pam & Tommy: The Story of the World's Most Infamous Sex Tape Porn, guns, the mob and one very disgruntled electrician: how the superstar couple's most intimate moments went global
The saga got hashtagged #TheStory and trended worldwide. Missy Elliot, Keke Palmer, Solange Knowles joined the legions obsessing online. "Drama, humor, action, suspense, character development," Ava DuVernay, the director of Selma, tweeted. "There's so much untapped talent in the hood." ("I'm not from the hood tho Ava," Zola replied. "Ima suburban bitch. Still love you tho"). There were Zola Halloween costumes, Zola feminist think pieces, Zola comics, and parody movie trailers for a rumored Hollywood project: In a world where stripper fingers turn to Twitter fingers… One of her 108,000 followers anointed her the "Queen of hoeism." To which, Zola replied: "Title of my autobiography."
But what really happened that weekend in Tampa? Here, for the first time, is Zola's exclusive account. I went to Detroit to meet with her and her tight-knit family, and also spoke at length with the other main players, many of whom are eager to set Zola's story straight. "She's ruining my life," Jessica tells me.
As outrageous as #TheStory seems, many of the details line up, though a few key points don't. Jessica insists she has never prostituted herself, and says that Zola was the one who wanted to turn tricks in Florida. Zola admits to embellishing some of the more sensational details — Jarrett's suicide attempt, Z shooting the pimp — for entertainment value, but denies the allegation that she sold sex for money on the trip. When she posted the story on Twitter, she was caught up in the moment, she explains, riffing on the reactions of her followers who were responding in real time. She had posted and removed the story twice before and no one cared. To garner more interest this time, she made it darkly funny while preserving the gist of what happened. And she has no regrets. "I made people who probably wouldn't want to hear a sex trafficking story want to be a part of it," she says, "because it was entertaining."
That's the one thing each of the participants agree upon: the real story behind #TheStory, of how young girls and women are held against their will by sex traffickers, is more fucked up and unconscionable than any one person could invent. There are currently an estimated 4.5 million victims of sex trafficking worldwide. "It's common and it happens," Zola tells me, as she cracks open a crab leg at Hooters. "It could happen to anyone."
Jeremy Deputat
Zola's family calls her The Enforcer. As the oldest of eight in a family that cycled through fathers and cities, Zola was always, as her mother Nichelle Watkins tells me, "putting everybody in their place." This went beyond telling her sisters to do the dishes. She was a tough precocious girl who fought often. A boy once smashed a bottle over her head in math class because she was answering too many questions correctly; another time, when a girl spit on her, Zola says she earned a few hundred hours of community service for slamming the girl's head into the ground.
On her 18th birthday, while still in high school and living at home, she began waitressing at Hooters. She wanted to be a singer and was saving money to move into her own place, when another waitress told her about the lucrative world of exotic dancing. "She's like, 'I make two grand a weekend,'" Zola recalls. "I was like, 'Okay, I'm coming!'" Her mother, a successful paralegal, balked, but also treated Zola like an adult. "You got to be careful," Watkins told her. "I can't tell you to stop, but what I can say is you need to come to me if there's any trouble. And don't do anything outside of your dancing."
Zola was quickly earning up to $1,000 a night in tips, but the job came with its share of trouble. She saw a bouncer get shot, and was briefly involved with an older guy who, while they were sleeping, got raided by the police. At one point, she and another dancer fell in with a gang of credit card thieves. She recounted each episode to her mother with a mix of wisdom and world-weariness. "I am good," she repeatedly said. "I learned my lesson."
One afternoon in March, Jessica Rae Swiatkowski, a bisexual 21-year-old blonde with collarbone tattoos, walked into Hooters for lunch with a friend. Zola caught her eye. "She walked past and she was pretty," Jessica recalls. "I just brought her over to the table." The two of them got to talking, and Zola showed Jessica her Tumblr blog on her iPhone. Jessica scrolled through nude pictures of assorted models and images of unicorns until she came to a shot of Zola in a red sequined thong with a rack of lingerie behind her. "Are you a dancer?" She asked. They swapped stories about clubs where they'd both danced, and Jessica showed her photos of her little girl. "We should work together sometime," Jessica said. They exchanged numbers.
"She was really nice," Zola recalls. "She was sweet, she was cute."
A few days later, Zola was watching Powerpuff Girls on Netflix when she got a text from Jessica: "Do you want to come to Florida with me?"
"What for?" Zola replied.
"Well you said next time I dance that you'd come and I'm going to dance in Florida," Jessica said, adding her boyfriend was coming along.
Part of the stripper game is going on the road, milking money from a fresh crop of guys when the locals grow tired. If they were going to make good money in some upscale club, Zola was in — but her boyfriend, Sean King, was out. Sean, a tall, mellow 20-year-old who works as a loan processor at a mortgage company, had known her since sixth grade. Her dancing didn't make him jealous, but he was hoping she'd stop. He also didn't like the idea of her road tripping with a stranger. "You don't really know her," he said. "You just met her."
Zola reassured him, "She's a really tiny white chick. What can happen?" Sean was still unconvinced, so, as Zola wrote, "I had to fuck him calm."
"It worked," Sean tells me with a grin. "I believe I took a nap."
The black SUV pulled up at her house around 8 p.m. Zola had packed her favorite stripper gear: French maid and schoolgirl outfits, and 10-inch stilettos with heels of rhinestone-covered pistols. Jessica's boyfriend, Jarrett Scott, a scrappy 22-year-old white guy with diamond stud earrings and a broken front tooth, politely put her bags in the back of the car. But there was another guy along too: Jarrett and Jessica's roommate, Rudy, a tall, brawny Nigerian whose fiancé was living and dancing in Tampa. (Zola calls Rudy "Z" in #TheStory). "We're gonna have fun," he told her.
They road tripped through the early hours of March 26, flipping stations — "listening to Lil Wayne, listening to Gucci," Zola says — and chowing down McDonald's drive-thru. Jarrett was talking about how he and Jess wanted to get their own place. Rudy hyped up all the money they were going to make that weekend, cracking jokes the whole time. "He was like the clown in the car," Zola says. "He kept everyone up or laughing."
But their first stop in Tampa turned out to be a dingy shithole. "It was a really, really, really cheap motel," she recalls, "The lights were not all on, and outside of the motel there were like three guys lined up standing with girls walking the strip." Zola eyed Jessica dubiously, and says Jessica told her that the room was just for Jarrett while they worked. "I was like yea bitch okay," she tweeted in her story. "But trust I am NOT laying my head here."
Jeremy Deputat
After dinner, Rudy drove Jessica and Zola to the Tampa Gold Club, a low slung yellow building with a sign out front that read Topless Full Liquor. Unlike Detroit, which requires licenses to dance, all they had to do was fill out an application, show ID and pay a nominal house fee. "As long as they look the part and aren't too hood rat, we'll let them work here," says Gold Club hostess, Casey Walsh. Zola and Jess changed into the club's uniforms — tiny black shorts and pasties — and took a selfie by the lockers. It was a slow night, but Zola says she cleared $800 in a few hours. Afterwards, standing outside the club, Jessica called Rudy to get them. Then, Zola says, Jessica turned to her and said, "If you made any money, put it in your bra because he's gonna ask you what you made."
Zola again eyed her dubiously. "Okay," she said, "who is he really?"
"He's taking care of me," Jessica replied. Zola had heard other girls say the same thing about their pimps. She thought about the fact that Jessica, Jarrett and Rudy all lived together. "I was starting to put two and two together," she says. But in the moment, Zola just wanted to stay clear of trouble. "I was just like if that's what she wants to do, that's fine," she recalls. "I've been around that before."
When Rudy returned, Zola says, he asked how much each of them earned. "The club was slow," Jessica replied. "Neither of us made anything."
Three years earlier, when Jessica was 18, she began stripping at a club in Detroit. One night, a customer beckoned her over for a lap dance. By the time the next song started and she turned to face him, he had taken down his pants and pulled her on top of him. He raped her then walked out the door. Jessica had dealt with her share of misfortune. She'd been born to a 15-year-old mother, and raised in what she describes as a troubled home, surrounded by drugs and alcohol. "I was bouncing from abusive relationship to abusive relationship," she says. But when she left the club after being raped, she says she finally found a man who seemed to have her best interests at heart: Rudy. "He sat with me the entire night while I was crying," she says.
Rudy was the best friend of her booking agent. He found her work at a different club and let her crash at his duplex near Hooters. Jessica had lost custody of her daughter, and Rudy helped cover the cost of an attorney to try to get her back. Jessica says they slept together two times. He took her to visit his parents, who Jessica says are successful doctors. At the same time, she says, he kept her in the dark about how he made a living. "I never really asked what Rudy did," Jessica says. "It never mattered to me."
Before long, though, it became obvious to Jessica that he was pimping. "He goes to parties and finds the dumbest drunk girl," she says. "A week later, they would be on Backpage" — a classified ads site often used by pimps.
Jeremy Deputat
What happened next in Tampa is entirely based on Zola's account. According to her, Rudy asked Jessica, "Well, you want to trap?" Trap, Zola knew, was slang for prostitution. "He was telling Jess what she was going to do," she recalls. "I realized he could be aggressive." As Zola tried to remain calm, she says Rudy checked them into a suite at a nearby hotel, and he and Jessica soon left to buy beauty products. "Send Jess the pictures that you took when you were getting ready for the club," he added on the way out, Zola says. When they returned a bit later, Zola says she learned why he wanted those photos; he used them to place ads on Backpage for both of them. According to her, he tossed Jessica a burner — their "trap phone" — and said, "You guys have both been getting a lot of calls. Get ready."
Zola had known girls who'd been raped, drugged and held captive in hotel rooms. ("I just never thought that it would happen to me," she says.). Jessica looked sluggish as she picked out something to wear. Zola flipped. As she chronicled in her tweets: "BITCH U GOT ME FUCKED UP. IM NOT ABOUT TO PLAY WIT U HO. IM GOIN HOME."
Jessica, she says, burst out crying. "Don't leave me by myself," Jessica pleaded. "The only reason I invited you was because I wanted another girl on this trip." Zola couldn't figure out whether Jessica was a willing participant or a victim. "I didn't want to leave her by herself," Zola says. "I kind of felt bad for her." Plus, she says she was afraid of what Rudy might do if she left. "He knew where I worked and where I lived," Zola says. She told Jessica that she would stay, but she wasn't going to trap. When the phone buzzed with a text from a john, Zola says, Jessica told her to act as security. "You check and make sure he's cool," Jessica allegedly said. "Make sure it's not a cop-type thing. See if there is a wire. Ask him to lift his shirt up."
Zola opened the door to a heavyset middle-aged white guy. "Turn around," she said, searching him. She asked for his wallet — no badge. "Ok," Zola said, "she's right there."
Zola went to the other side of the suite, too nervous to head to the lobby. "I just stayed up there and looked at the wall," she says. As she heard Jessica having sex, she says she felt the trap phone buzzing in her hand. Whenever she saw a request for her, she'd reply that "Zola's not available," and delete the text.
As the guy left, Zola says she saw how much Jessica had been paid and her protective instincts took over. "Jess, u selling puss for $100????" She later recounted on Twitter. "Pussy is worth thousands." She told Jessica to make her own ad and charge more money — Rudy would be none the wiser. "Just completely play him like that," Zola said.
She snapped a few photos of Jess — "Cuter pictures," she says, "no face, just body shots" — and says she put a new ad online, charging a minimum of $500. The phone blew up. Half a dozen guys came one after the other, she says, including a handsome older Italian. "I was, like, 'Go girl,'" Zola recalls. "He can get a discount." Zola followed the same routine, she says: check for badges, go across the suite, leave them to their business. "Most of the time they would just literally be unbuckling their pants at the door," she says.
When Rudy returned to collect his money, Zola says she tried to play it cool. "You haven't gotten any calls?" he asked her. "Those were good pictures I put up." He took Jessica's wad of cash — not seeming to care how many clients had visited her or how much they had been charged — and slipped Zola $500. "If you make your own money, give that back to me," he said. Then he had sex with Jessica on the couch. (Jessica confirmed this.) Afterwards, Rudy left to rejoin his fiancé. According to Zola, Jessica then said, "That's how I pay my rent."
Back at the dingy motel, Jarrett woke up alone around 4 a.m. He tried Jessica repeatedly, before getting her on the phone. She told him they'd gone to another club that was open until six a.m. Six came and went, and Jarrett texted her again. She told him that Rudy had forgotten to get them, so she and Zola checked in to a hotel up the street. "I was like, 'Alright, I basically already know what's going on now,'" Jarrett tells me. "She either went home from the club with a customer, or she's out doing something that she's not supposed to be doing."
He went outside for a cigarette and met a tall skinny black guy at the gas station across the street. "Do you by any chance smoke or anything?" Jarrett asked. "I kind of need to smoke. I'm on edge." At the guy's house, they got high and drank beers. As seven came around, still without word from Jessica and Zola, Jarrett admits he lost it. He logged onto Facebook and posted a message on her wall: "Hey, sucking old man dick for dollars? You're the true MVP. Go Jessica!"
By the time Jarrett got back to the motel room, Jessica was on the bed, crying, and Zola was sitting in the corner. The door slammed behind him. "Give me your phone!" Rudy shouted, quickly deleting the Facebook post. "I ought to whoop your ass and kill you right now, motherfucker!"
"Do it!" Jarrett replied. "I don't care. I have nothing to live for. The girl I love's a whore!"
According to Zola, that seemed to give Rudy a better idea. "I should fuck her right here, just show you who she really belongs to," he said, then seemed to reconsider it. "You know what? I'm going to kill your manhood. You're going to watch your girl go on all these calls. You're going to take her."
Courtesy of Aziah Wells King
Zola could feel her eyes welling up with tears. She was afraid what might happen next, but for some reason also couldn't help but laugh. "It was not the proper response," she admits. "I still felt that Jess was afraid of Rudy, like she felt like she didn't have a choice."
Rudy moved them all to another hotel — now that Jarrett had been smoking weed with some guy, telling him the girls were out making loads of cash, Rudy assumed they were about to be robbed. After they checked in, and Rudy returned to his fiancé, Jarrett lashed out at Jessica, slapping and punching himself in the face. Jessica was screaming for him to stop. "Everybody calm the fuck down!" Zola shouted.
She grabbed her bag and headed down to the pool. (As she later tweeted, "I mean, I am in Florida!") Despite the insanity, Zola was still afraid to leave. "I don't want it looking like, 'You left her, you didn't call the police, you went back home, now this girl ended up dead,'" she says. "That's why I stayed. Just so that if anything went bad for her, she has somebody."
When Rudy returned to the hotel that evening, he was furious to find Zola asleep. "Hey, you don't want to be a part of this fucking team?" He said. "What the hell are you doing here if you don't want to do this shit?" He told Zola to get dressed. It was time for them to get to work. Rudy tossed Zola the trap phone, and told her to let Jarrett know where he had to drive Jessica. "I cannot wait for this night to be over," Zola thought, "so I can go home."
Zola, Jarrett, and Jessica tell different versions of how the night unfolded from here. Jessica says only Zola took outcalls that night. Jarrett says both women went together on at least one trick, but quickly left when the johns didn't have the money. Zola says the only thing she did that night, while Jessica visited multiple johns, was try to talk Jarrett out of his relationship with her. "You're trying to be Captain Save-a-ho," she told him as they waited in the car, "when she clearly doesn't want saving."
Zola says a guy then answered Jessica's ad with a special request. "Jess," Zola told her, "there's five of them. Are you okay with that? Should I just not respond to this?" For $5,000, Jessica agreed to do it. Zola says she waited in the car, while Jarrett walked Jessica inside. Moments later, he came running out. A guy had snatched Jessica, he said, and slammed the door in his face.
They called Rudy, who hurried over. "Where's my bitch at?" He shouted, pounding on the door with Zola and Jarrett behind him. "You've got five seconds to open the door, and then I'm going to shoot."
The door opened. There were fake designer purses and lingerie on the bed. Jessica was cowering in a corner. The guy wasn't a john at all, but a rival pimp. He offered Rudy $20,000 to buy Jessica. Rudy scoffed. "She makes that for me in a weekend," he said. "Just give her here."
At least, that's Zola's story. Jarrett offered a different version. According to him, there was no confrontation between Rudy and the pimp. He also denies Zola went with them on the outcall at all, saying it was he and Rudy alone who drove Jessica to that hotel. When they went to pick her up, Jarrett says, Jessica was already in the lobby. The pimp never offered Rudy $20,000 for Jessica, he says, and she hadn't been beaten. The only thing Rudy did in retaliation, according to Jarrett, was tell the hotel clerk to call the police because a man had tried to snatch his girlfriend. (Jessica's story closely mirrors Jarrett's, except, she says, it was Zola, not her, who was in the room with the other pimp that night).
Photo Courtesy of Jarrett Scott
Either way, Rudy gave Zola and Jarrett plane tickets to go home that morning. But Jessica, Rudy said, was staying behind. Jarrett begged her to go with them. "This isn't the life you want," he said. "Go get on that fucking flight with me right now, because you can leave if you want to leave. You're choosing not to leave." Jarrett was again hitting himself in the face and pulling at his hair, but Jessica appeared unmoved. He pointed at the fourth floor window and said, "I'm going to fucking jump off this balcony if you don't come." Zola, Jessica and Jarrett all say it was clearly an empty threat.
"I need to do this for my daughter," Jessica said.
Jarrett took his bag and stormed out the door. Zola followed behind him, but Jessica stopped her. "I hope you don't feel like I set you up," she said. "I hope we can be friends."
Zola searched her eyes, and said. "I will never see you again."
A few hours later, as their plane took off, Zola turned to Jarrett. "I really tried to hold this back," she said, "but you've got to know." Then she handed him her phone. "I took this picture the first night we got here," she said. It was Rudy and Jessica having sex on the hotel couch
Jarrett, who confirms he saw the picture, turned away. "You know what, Aziah?" he said. "I really appreciate that. I know I've just gotten to meet you and everything, you don't have to look out for me like this, but thanks."
Sean was at the airport in Detroit to meet them. Zola didn't seem like herself, he thought. He could tell she hadn't slept much, and seemed shaken. Helping her with her bag, Sean asked, "What's wrong with y'all?"
Afew days later, Jessica and Rudy allegedly coerced two other young women into trapping. On April 1, Breeonna Pellow and her best friend Jessica Forgie were driving back to Michigan from a vacation in California when Pellow's pickup truck broke down on a desolate stretch of highway, three hours west of Reno. When they tried to use their phones, they couldn't get a signal, but they could connect to a gas station's WiFi network. They got on Facebook to send an SOS to all of their friends. One response came from someone they thought might actually be able to help: Jessica Rae Swiatkowski.
Pellow, a 21-year-old single mother, had hung out with Jessica a couple of times back in Michigan, and had flirted with the idea of meeting up with Jessica to strip — something she had never done before. "Girl I wanna know what you're into," Pellow had messaged Jessica a few days earlier. "Cause I'm a freak bitch that loves money and will do anything for it."
Jessica told them to sit tight. Her agent was sending a car, and they'd take the next flight to Reno. He was more than happy to front them the cash.
After they all checked into the Atlantis Casino Resort in Reno, Rudy snatched Forgie's phone. She was 19, and had not been interested in stripping, let alone prostituting herself. "I need you to make a page," Rudy said.
"What the hell are you talking about?" Pellow replied.
Pellow and Forgie say Jessica tried to calm them, while Rudy scrolled through pictures on their phones and posted ads on Backpage. He set the price at $200 each. "Rudy just made it clear that he's not one to mess with," Forgie says. "I definitely wasn't thinking."
A call came in from a john who wanted two girls together. Rudy took Forgie to the nearby Peppermill Resort, leaving Pellow and Jessica to work. Pellow says she hid in the bathroom while Jessica and the john had sex. But Jessica claims Pellow and Forgie both prostituted themselves willingly. "They told me multiple times they wanted to do it," Jessica says. "They asked the second I saw them: 'What if I don't want to have sex with a black man?'" Jessica says, "'What if they want to have sex a certain way?'"
At the Peppermill, Forgie says when she pleaded with Rudy to let her go home, he said, "Oh, you think you can go home for free? I have an idea. You can fuck your way home." Forgie thought he meant that she'd have to turn tricks, but realized he was talking about having sex with him. "That's when he assaulted me," she claims.
Rudy then brought Pellow and Jessica back to the Peppermill Resort, where Pellow was terrified to discover Forgie wasn't inside the room. "I kicked that bitch to the curb," Rudy told her. Then Rudy's phone rang. Another john wanted a date with Pellow, but something wasn't right. The phone number in the ad was Forgie's. Why was this john calling Rudy's phone? "Screw this," Rudy said, hanging up. "We're going back to Florida."
When the elevator door opened onto the lobby, a swarm of cops tackled and cuffed Rudy. Forgie, who had escaped from the room earlier to get help, had been taken to the hospital after reporting the rape. At the station, where police suggested Pellow and Jessica hold hands to comfort each another, Jessica turned to Pellow and said, "Don't say anything."
Akporode "Rudy" Uwedjojevwe wears a brown t-shirt in his mugshot, and the tired gaze of a man at the end of his run. The 35-year-old, who is being held in a Nevada jail, has been charged with sexual assault, sex trafficking, battery, attempted pandering and felony counts stemming from a fight in jail. His trial is slated for January 19. Pellow and Forgie say they plan to testify against him. He could face life in prison. Though the accounts vary, everyone agrees that the man who manipulated them is rightfully behind bars. "It's a real thing, and it happens all the time," says Forgie, who has since struggled with depression to the point of threatening suicide. "People need to understand that." (Rudy didn't return requests to be interviewed for this story.)
Reno Police Department
Bradley Myles, CEO of the Polaris Project, a non-profit that fights human trafficking, calls Rudy's enterprise a textbook example of how women get swept up in sex work. "We're still not where we need to be yet as a country in terms of understanding how real sex trafficking is in our daily midst," he says. Polaris receives an average of 100 calls a day to its helpline (888-373-7888) and text service, BeFree. "They were designed to help girls exactly like the ones in this case," Myles says.
As to why the stories diverge, sometimes so fundamentally, it could be a variety of reasons: post-traumatic stress, the fog of time, covering up misdeeds. Pellow, Forgie and Zola each insist that Jessica was as culpable as Rudy in conning them. "She knows how to get in peoples' heads," Jarrett says. "She's a deceiving girl. She knows how to say everything you want to hear."
But now that she is free of Rudy, Jessica accepts some responsibility for her actions. "I was helping other girls be put into that situation," she tells me, "and as someone who's been sexually abused, why would I do that? All I can say is that I was literally brainwashed by Rudy." And though she continues to assert that Zola's story is false, Jessica, who is expecting another child soon, hopes the widespread attention it's receiving helps curb sex trafficking. "If even one girl looks at this and says, 'This can happen to me, I need to change,' then it will be worth it all in the end," she says. "It could be my daughter. She could be talked into this in the future, but maybe because I made these mistakes she won't."
As for Zola, she has not spoken to Jessica since Tampa, but also hopes their story will continue to raise awareness about sex trafficking in the U.S. "For whatever reason, people feel like it doesn't happen, not in their world at least," she says. "But it does." She is also launching her own line of "Hoeism" t-shirts, and is keeping close tabs on her social media reign. While she's still interested in being a singer, she says, this experience has bolstered her confidence as an author as well. "And a reality show would be kind of cool," she tells me. "I think I'm funny and entertaining." | Aziah "Zola" Wells' epic 148-tweet rant "about why me & this b---- here fell out" will be adapted for the big screen. Variety reports James Franco will direct a film based on David Kushner’s in-depth Rolling Stone article "Zola Tells All: The Real Story Behind The Greatest Stripper Saga Ever Tweeted" from a script by Andrew Neel and Mike Roberts; the Verge reports Franco will also star. In the November article, Kushner described Zola's tale about a last-minute trip to Tampa to strip as "Spring Breakers meets Pulp Fiction, as told by Nicki Minaj." Selma director Ava Duvernay was one of several celebs who became engrossed in Zola's tweets, writing that the story had "drama, humor, action, suspense, character development, there's so much untapped talent in the hood," per Vanity Fair. Indeed, the 20-year-old's story involved human trafficking, forced prostitution, rape, a suicide attempt from a fourth-floor balcony, and murder—though not everything she told actually happened. There's no word yet on when the movie might come out. At the Verge, Jamieson Cox "can't believe I'm saying this" but finds the Franco news palatable. "Zola's Floridian odyssey is basically the real-life version of Spring Breakers, a movie in which Franco turned in his best performance ever." |
A ccording to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , "115 Americans die every day from an opioid overdose," and deaths from prescription opioids have more than quadrupled since 1999. The epidemic's origins are complex, with fingers pointed at pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors, pharmacies, addicts and dealers, and health care professionals. Like the causes of the opioid epidemic, any solutions to the problem will likely involve many actors, including the federal government. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)âthe executive branch agency tasked with protecting the public health by ensuring the nation's drug supply is safe and effective âhas a central role in confronting drug abuse, including the opioid epidemic. Given the severity of the opioid epidemic and its prominence as a matter of national concern, efforts to combat the issue will likely continue to be of significant interest to Congress. This report focuses on FDA as a key player in these efforts. The report provides a brief overview of FDA's role in approving new prescription drugs, including opioids, and also addresses selected examples of the agency's existing legal authorities under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act or Act) and recent action taken with respect to the opioid crisis. The report concludes with a discussion of selected provisions of the recently enacted Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (SUPPORT Act), which amends the FD&C Act. In 1938, Congress passed the FD&C Act in an effort to bolster federal protection of public health and safety by creating new requirements designed to keep impure or dangerous products out of interstate commerce. FDA is the primary federal agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of the FD&C Act. With respect to prescription drugs, the FD&C Act establishes a comprehensive federal system of premarket approval for such drugs. The Act generally prohibits introducing or delivering new drugs in interstate commerce unless the drug is approved by FDA. Under current law, in order to market a new brand-name drug, a manufacturer must file a new drug application (NDA) with FDA, which must include, among other things, "full reports of investigations which have been made to show whether or not such drug is safe for use and whether such drug is effective in use." FDA may approve an NDA only if the sponsor of the application (e.g., a drug manufacturer or marketer) demonstrates, among other things, that the drug is safe and effective under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the product's labeling. The FD&C Act generally authorizes FDA to refuse to approve an NDA if the agency finds the labeling is false or misleading in any particular way. Additionally, many drugsâincluding a majority of opioid products approved in recent decadesâare reformulations of existing products . Reformulated drugs may also be approved through an NDA under the FD&C Act, and drug sponsors may rely on safety and efficacy data of previously approved products as part of their applications. In addition to premarket authority, FDA also possesses postmarket authority to monitor drugs that have entered interstate commerce and ensure that the benefits of a drug continue to overbalance the risks. For example, FDA may require postmarket drug labeling changes if the agency becomes aware of certain new information that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS Secretary) believes should be included in the labeling of the drug, as well as postapproval studies, clinical trials, and risk evaluation mitigation strategies (REMS) under certain circumstances. Additionally, the agency may also monitor safety data related to approved drugs through an active postmarket risk assessment system. In general, FDA has broad authority with respect to the implementation of the FD&C Act. The agency is empowered to promulgate regulations to efficiently enforce the Act's broad mandates and develop guidance documents that set forth the agency's interpretation of the Act or accompanying regulations. The FD&C Act also authorizes FDA to "conduct examinations and investigations" to administer the Act and to disseminate information about regulated products involving "imminent danger to health" or "gross deception to the consumer." While new opioids are generally subject to the same approval requirements as most other drugs, FDA's task to ensure the safety and efficacy of opioids is particularly difficult. Throughout recorded history , societies have struggled with balancing the medicinal use of opioids in pain management with the concomitant euphoric effects that have induced the substance's abuse. Sixty years ago, the head of surgery at the University of Illinois noted, "we must appreciate that severe constant pain will destroy the morale of the sturdiest individual. . . [b]ut. . . we are often loathe to give liberal amounts of narcotics because the drug addiction itself may become a hideous spectacle." As a result of these difficulties, for nearly a century , opioid pain medications were used in the United States primarily to treat acute and cancer-related pain. However, studies from the 1970s revealing inadequate management of chronic pain, followed by influential articles published in the 1980s reporting a low incidence of addictive behavior in small groups of cancer and noncancer patients, led to a trend toward more liberal prescribing of opioids within the medical community. The shifting views on the safety and efficacy of opioids culminated in FDA's 1995 approval of Purdue Pharma's controlled-release opioid pain medication, OxyContin, the product some point to as the catalyst for the current opioid epidemic. Between 2000 and 2009 , the medical community established new standards for pain management, which included pain as a new vital sign , and prescriptions for opioids increased. By 2016, an estimated 11.5 million Americans were abusing prescription painkillers. FDA's legal authorities and recent actions taken in response to the opioid epidemic may be considered against the backdrop of challenging legal and policy questions about the role FDA can or should play with respect to regulation of products that have public health consequences. As part of these questions, FDA officials have discussed the importance of striking the right balance between taking aggressive action to fight opioid misuse and addiction, while simultaneously protecting patients who experience severe pain. Additionally, given that the agency's approach to evaluating and approving drugs is based on "the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested" in FDA-approved labeling, questions may arise about the extent to which the agency has legal authority to consider drug misuse in carrying out its regulatory actions. Under a number of FD&C Act provisions, FDA has considerable discretion in determining the information that is relevant to its regulatory decisions. The following sections of this report illustrate how FDA has exercised its discretion, particularly in its response to prescription opioid abuse and addiction. FDA is taking a multifaceted approach in its response to the opioid epidemic. FDA officials have indicated that the agency focuses its efforts in four areas: 1. decreasing exposure and preventing new addiction; 2. supporting the treatment of those with opioid use disorder; 3. fostering the development of novel pain treatment therapies; and 4. improving enforcement and assessing benefit risk. Using these four categories as a framework, the following sections highlight some of FDA's recent strategies for addressing the opioid epidemic and the agency's existing authority to pursue such strategies. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has stated that the agency is concentrating on ways to lower overall exposure to opioid drugs and, consequently, reduce the number of new cases of addiction. The Commissioner has also averred that one contributing factor to the opioid epidemic is inappropriate prescribing practices, in which clinicians write unnecessary prescriptions for opioid products or prescribe a dose that is beyond the patient's needs. FDA has recently explored various measures to influence health care provider behavior, particularly through its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) authorities. FDA may only approve drugs for marketing if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the medication is safe and effective for its intended use. As FDA has stated, the agency's approval of a drug does not indicate an absence of risk, but rather that the drug has an "appropriate benefit-risk balance." For most drugs, such a balance is achieved through proper labeling and other postmarket surveillance measures. However, in order to mitigate potentially serious risks for certain drugs, FDA has authority to require certain additional safety controls. Such controls may be implemented through a risk evaluation mitigation strategy, or REMS. The FD&C Act generally allows FDA to require submission of, and compliance with, a proposed REMS if the agency determines that this strategy is necessary to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks. A REMS is essentially a mandatory risk management plan for "responsible persons" (commonly drug manufacturers) that is subject to FDA approval. For example, as part of a REMS, drug manufacturers may be required to provide certain information to patients and/or health care providers (such as a medication guide or patient package insert) or impose limitations on a product's distribution. In general, FDA may require a REMS as a condition of a product's approval, or the agency may impose a REMS on a product it has already approved when new information arises. FDA officials, various industry stakeholders, and others have recently discussed REMS requirements in the context of opioid prescriber education, including the possibility of requiring some form of mandatory health care provider training on proper opioid prescribing and other issues related to opioid use. Questions may be raised about the scope of FDA's authority under the FD&C Act to compel physicians and other drug prescribers, through a REMS, to obtain certain training or education in order to prescribe opioid drug products. Such questions may arise in light of the fact that the regulation of health care providers and their prescribing practices has traditionally been a state function. As part of a REMS, FDA may require that it contain additional, potentially more restrictive safety precautions, referred to as "elements to assure safe use" (ETASU), because of a drug's "inherent toxicity or potential harmfulness." In order to require ETASU, FDA must determine that the drug has been shown to be effective, but is associated with a "serious adverse drug experience" and can be only marketed if (1) such elements are required as part of the REMS, and (2) other components of the REMS are not sufficient to mitigate the risk. The ETASUs must include one or more goals to mitigate a risk listed on the drug's label, and may require, among other things, that health care providers who prescribe the drug have particular training or experience, or are specially certified (the opportunity to obtain such training or certification with respect to the drug shall be available to any willing provider from a frontier area in a widely available training or certification method (including an on-line course or via mail) as approved by the [HHS] Secretary at reasonable cost to the provider)... Accordingly, assuming FDA has made the requisite determinations concerning the need for a REMS and the need for it to contain elements to assure safe use, then it appears that the agency may potentially compel a drug manufacturer and other responsible persons, through a REMS, to require that a health care provider obtain certain training in order to prescribe a particular drug. While the FD&C Act does not expressly provide details on how a prescriber training requirement must be implemented, the responsible person is generally obligated to carry out the requirements of the REMS and must provide assessments as to whether each element of the approved REMS is meeting the goals of the strategy. In 2012, FDA approved a REMS for extended-release and long-acting (ER/LA) opioid analgesics. As part of this REMS, drug manufacturers had to make voluntary training available at low or no cost to health care providers who prescribe these drugs, but the REMS contained no requirement that prescribers receive this training as a precondition to dispensing applicable drugs to patients. In September 2018, FDA approved an expanded version of the opioid analgesic REMS. This newly modified REMS covers not only ER/LA opioid analgesics, but also more commonly prescribed immediate-release opioids used in the outpatient setting. Pursuant to the recently amended REMS, opioid analgesics manufacturers must provide educational programs for opioid prescribers, as well as nurses, pharmacists, and other health care providers who treat and monitor patients with pain. Training provided through the modified REMS must be based on an FDA-developed blueprint, which outlines core components of the educational programs. While the modified Opioid Analgesic REMS does not compel health care providers to take this training in order to prescribe opioids, FDA officials continue to examine whether the REMS should include some type of mandatory educational training, and, if so, under what circumstances. In responding to the opioid epidemic, FDA is also focusing on measures that would better assist individuals struggling with opioid addiction. These efforts include promoting broader access to opioid antagonists that can stop or reverse an overdose, including the drug naloxone. Naloxone is a medication that generally treats an overdose by quickly blocking the effects that opioids have on the brain, and it is commonly viewed as an effective and frequently life-saving intervention. One perceived legal barrier to more widespread naloxone access is its current classification as a prescription drug. Under the FD&C Act, certain drugsâbecause of their toxicity, potential for harm, method or measures necessary for use, or a requirement of a drug's NDAâcan only be dispensed upon a prescription of a licensed practitioner. Similar to prescription drugs, the FD&C Act governs, among other things, the safety and efficacy of over-the-counter (OTC) medications, including the approval, manufacture, and distribution of such drugs. In general, OTC drugs, unlike prescription drugs, are those that can be adequately labeled so that they do not pose a risk of misuse or abuse and can be safely and effectively used without the supervision of a health care provider. Thus, OTC drugs are publicly available for consumers to purchase for treatment of a variety of conditions. Currently, there are more than 300,000 marketed OTC drug products that fall into over 80 therapeutic categories (such as analgesics or antacids). There are two main regulatory mechanisms through which a drug like naloxone may be switched from prescription to OTC status. First, FDA is authorized to implement a switch through rulemaking. The FD&C Act specifies that FDA may remove drugs from the prescription requirements by regulation when such requirements "are not necessary for the protection of the public health." Under current regulations, a proposal to exempt a drug from the prescription requirements may be initiated by the FDA Commissioner or any interested person. The second mechanism is through the drug sponsor's submission of an NDA or a supplemental NDA, under which the sponsor, typically the manufacturer, requests that FDA approve the switch. The latter approach is the more common pathway for drugs to switch to OTC status, and FDA officials have stated that it is, among other things, a much more expeditious process (as compared to FDA's notice-and-comment rulemaking). With respect to both approaches, FDA takes a "fresh look" at all the safety and efficacy data used in the prescription drug's NDA. Additionally, a central element necessary for FDA's determination that a product is safe for OTC use is the establishment of a label that conveys key messages about the product to a lay consumer, as well as adequate testing to ensure that consumers comprehend the label and can use the product correctly and safely in an OTC setting. FDA officials have frequently expressed support for giving naloxone OTC status. The agency has also noted ways in which it is taking steps to assist naloxone manufacturers in submitting an application and pursuing approval of an OTC product. For example, in 2016, FDA officials announced that the agency had developed a consumer-friendly model Drug Facts Label (DFL), a required label for OTC products, which is intended to convey the information a consumer would need to administer naloxone in the event of an emergency overdose. FDA also arranged for scientific testing of this model labeling. Despite the fact that FDA has not approved naloxone for OTC use, states have taken action to make naloxone more accessible. Although FDA has exclusive authority to approve prescription drugs, states maintain authority with respect to who may prescribe these medications and the required format for valid prescriptions. Many states, for example, permit third-party prescriptionsâissued to a friend, family member, or other third party who is not at risk of overdoseâfor use on someone else. These laws provide an exception to the typical state law requirement that prescriptions be written only for the person who will actually take the medication. Additionally, some states permit medical practitioners to prescribe naloxone through standing orders, through which the drug may be dispensed by a pharmacy or other entity based on certain criteria, without the prescriber's examination of a particular patient. Notwithstanding these state laws, some entities still argue a need for FDA to give naloxone OTC status. FDA has stated that it is working with industry and other government entities to spur the development and marketing of new pain treatments that have less potential for abuse, including generic abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) of opioid products. ADF technologies are those intended to make abusing a drug more difficult or less rewarding, and the benefits of these technologies have been the subject of debate. To date, FDA has approved 10 opioid analgesics with these characteristics. However, currently, opioids with ADFs are only available as brand-name products, and there are no generic opioids with FDA-approved abuse-deterrent labeling on the market. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has noted that because opioids with ADFs are only available as brand-name products, they are fundamentally more expensive than available generic versions of non-ADF opioids. In order to provide a quicker route for the approval of generic drugs, Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, which created the abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) process. Under this act, a generic drug may be approved for marketing without the same clinical studies and safety and effectiveness evidence required for brand-name drug approval if the generic drug mimics the approved brand-name drug in certain key ways. For example, an ANDA generally must contain information demonstrating that the route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the new generic are the same as those of its brand-name analog. In addition, ANDA applications must contain "information to show that the labeling proposed for the new drug is the same as the labeling approved for the [brand-name] drug," subject to certain specified exceptions. In November 2017, as directed by Congress as part of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016, FDA issued a nonbinding guidance document for industry, which contains recommendations about what studies a potential ANDA applicant should conduct and submit to FDA to demonstrate that the generic drug's abuse deterrent properties are on par with its prescription counterpart. Additionally, in July 2018, FDA issued additional draft guidance documents that are intended to assist drug developers in bringing generic ADF opioid products to market. As part of its response to the opioid epidemic, FDA officials have expressed a desire to better leverage the agency's enforcement capabilities. The FD&C Act contains a number of enforcement mechanisms, both civil and criminal in nature, which may apply to the marketing of diverted opioids, as well as drugs not approved by FDA. Persons who violate the requirements of the Act may be subject to a variety of sanctions, including civil monetary penalties, injunctions, seizures, fines, and imprisonment, depending on the particular misconduct at issue. Commonly, FDA may issue a warning letter to encourage voluntary compliance with the FD&C Act before initiating further enforcement action. Under one example of recent opioid-related enforcement, in May 2018, FDA issued a number of warning letters to marketers and distributors of kratom products. According to FDA, these products were sold with unproven claims that the products could treat opioid addiction and withdrawal. In the warning letters, the agency states, among other things, that the products are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the referenced uses and are therefore considered unapproved new drugs sold in violation of the FD&C Act. The letters request the parties take immediate corrective action, and include notice of FDA's intention to take further enforcement actions if the recipients fail to comply. Additionally, with respect to the assessment of the benefits and risks of a particular drug, one question that may be raised is whether FDA can withdraw approval for certain opioid medications when it is determined that the benefits of treating pain are outweighed by the potential for abuse. The FD&C Act authorizes FDA to withdraw approval of an approved NDA when, among other things, there is new clinical evidence showing that the product is unsafe for its approved use. FDA must first provide the manufacturer with notice that the agency is proposing to withdraw approval and an opportunity for a hearing on the merits. However, the agency may suspend new drug approval immediately if it is determined that the product poses an immediate hazard to the public health. Although it is not a common occurrence, it has been estimated that FDA has withdrawn approval of approximately 600 new drug and abbreviated new drug applications. FDA has signaled its willingness to withdraw approval of products with serious potential for abuse. In June 2017, FDA requested that Endo Pharmaceuticals recall from market Opana ERâa potent painkiller reformulated to make it difficult to crush and snort. Although the product was intended to curb opioid abuse, it reportedly led to the largest HIV outbreak in Indiana history when addicts resorted to liquidizing and injecting the drug with shared needles. Ultimately, the company announced in July 2017 that it would comply with FDA's request. In October 2018, Congress passed the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (SUPPORT Act), P.L. 115-271 , comprehensive legislation primarily aimed at opioid misuse and abuse. Title III, subtitle A of the SUPPORT Act contains provisions that amend the FD&C Act in various ways to address the opioid epidemic, including the following: To promote appropriate prescribing practices and decrease exposure to opioids, the SUPPORT Act bolsters FDA's REMS authority, expressly permitting the agency to compel a REMS if there is a serious risk of overdose or drug abuse. Further, under specified circumstances, FDA may compel manufacturers through this REMS to make drugs available with certain packaging systems (such as packaging that provides a set treatment duration) or safe disposal features to render the drugs irretrievable for illicit uses. FDA has authority to monitor drugs that are on the market. For instance, FDA may require postmarket labeling changes if the agency becomes aware of certain information about a drug, and postapproval studies or clinical trials under certain circumstances. According to the FDA Commissioner, despite widespread use of opioid analgesics to treat chronic pain, limited data exists on the long-term efficacy and impacts of these products, and further research is warranted. However, prior to enactment of the SUPPORT Act, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and some Members of Congress indicated that while FDA had authority to request postmarket studies based on drug safety concerns, the agency lacked explicit authority to require studies solely to examine drug efficacy. The SUPPORT Act generally amends the FD&C Act to clarify FDA's authority to require postmarket studies and trials for certain drugs that may have reduced effectiveness over time. The Act also expressly authorizes FDA to compel drug manufacturers or others to make drug labeling changes based on new information related to reduced effectiveness. Finally, the SUPPORT Act calls on FDA to issue guidance on its new authority. To encourage development of new, nonaddictive therapies that treat chronic pain or opioid addiction, the SUPPORT Act directs FDA to hold at least one public meeting and subsequently to issue nonbinding guidance to assist industry stakeholders and health care providers. The meetings and guidance may address, among other things, (1) circumstances under which the agency considers misuse and abuse of controlled substances in reviewing a new drug or device; (2) use of novel clinical trial designs and real-world evidence and patient experience data to develop nonaddictive medical products; (3) standards for, and development of, opioid-sparing data to include on medical product labeling; and (4) application of breakthrough therapy designation for nonaddictive medical products intended to treat pain or addiction. The SUPPORT Act provides the HHS Secretary with additional enforcement tools to address the opioid epidemic. For instance, under new Section 5569D of the FD&C Act, if the Secretary determines that there is a "reasonable probability that a controlled substance would cause serious health consequences or death," the agency may order manufacturers, importers, distributors, or pharmacists to immediately cease distributing these drugs. Parties subject to the order must have an opportunity to consult with FDA prior to issuance of the order and an informal hearing. Following this hearing, the Secretary may (1) vacate the order based on inadequate evidence to support the order; (2) continue the order ceasing distribution of the drug until a specified date; or (3) amend the order to require a recall. However, if the Secretary determines that recalling a controlled substance presents a greater health risk than not recalling it, the order may not include a recall or a cessation of distribution. The SUPPORT Act addresses the agency's enforcement role with respect to drug importation as well. In collaboration with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, FDA is authorized to inspect, detain, and refuse entry to imported drugs, devices, food, and other products under its jurisdiction. Recently, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and others have highlighted challenges associated with diverted opioids or illegal drugs that enter the United States through international mail facilities, including inspecting the high volume of items passing through these facilities and procedural difficulties relating to whether a particular product violates the FD&C Act and may be refused entry or destroyed. The SUPPORT Act is intended to streamline the process of refusing entry to diverted or illegal drug products. Among other things, the Act directs the Secretary (acting through the FDA Commissioner) to coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland Security on customs and border protection activities relating to illegal controlled substances and drug imports, including at international mail facilities. The Act also requires the HHS Secretary to work with the Homeland Security Secretary and the Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service to provide that import facilities, in which FDA operates, have certain facility and technology upgrades. | According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the annual number of drug overdose deaths in the United States involving opioids has more than quadrupled since 1999. CDC estimates that in 2016, more than 63,000 people died from a drug overdose, and approximately 42,000 of these deaths involved an opioid. In combating the opioid epidemic, one central challenge for state and federal regulators is striking a balance between taking aggressive action to fight opioid misuse and addiction, while simultaneously protecting access to medication for patients who experience severe pain. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)âthe executive agency tasked with protecting the public health by ensuring the nation's drug supply is safe and effectiveâhas a pivotal role in addressing these issues. This report focuses on FDA's role as a key player in federal efforts to curb the opioid epidemic. The report provides an overview of FDA's role in approving new prescription drugs, including certain challenges presented by the approval and regulation of opioid products. Next, the report addresses FDA's multifaceted approach in its response to the opioid epidemic, the agency's use of its existing legal authorities under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act or Act), and recent agency action taken to target the misuse of opioid medications. The report concludes with a discussion of selected provisions of the recently enacted Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (SUPPORT Act), which amends the FD&C Act and provides FDA with new tools to combat opioid abuse. |
The Catholic Church teaches that premarital sex, gay marriage, contraception, and divorce are wrong — but a major survey ahead of Pope Francis' trip to the United States finds that much of his American flock does not agree.
The new poll by the Pew Research Center reveals that Americans who identify as Catholic are surprisingly open to non-traditional families, and many don't see birth control, cohabitation, remarriage or gay sex as sins — no matter what the Vatican says.
Much smaller but still significant percentages don't even see abortion — grounds for excommunication under canon law — as a sin.
"This may be in part because Francis' American flock is experiencing life in all its modern complexity," the Pew researchers wrote, noting that a quarter of Catholics have been divorced themselves and almost half have at one point done what used to be called "living in sin."
A Pew Research Survey has taken the pulse of American Catholics ahead of Pope Francis' visit to the United States. EDUARDO MUNOZ / Reuters
The data shows that Catholics who attend Mass weekly are more likely to stick to church teachings than those who only show up occasionally, but even among the very faithful sizable numbers could be seen as "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose which tenets to follow.
On the question of what's a sin, the researchers found:
Cohabitation without marriage : 65 percent say it's not a sin, and 51 percent of regular church-goers.
: 65 percent say it's not a sin, and 51 percent of regular church-goers. Homosexual behavior : 50 percent of all Catholics say it's not a sin, although that dropped to 36 percent among those who attend Mass regularly.
: 50 percent of all Catholics say it's not a sin, although that dropped to 36 percent among those who attend Mass regularly. Contraception : More than three-fourths say it's not a sin, including 63 percent of those who are in the pews every Sunday.
: More than three-fourths say it's not a sin, including 63 percent of those who are in the pews every Sunday. Divorce : Seven out of 10 say it's not a sin; more than half of those who frequently attend services agree.
: Seven out of 10 say it's not a sin; more than half of those who frequently attend services agree. Abortion: A third of Catholics say terminating a pregnancy is not a sin. Among church-going Catholics, one in five don't see abortion as sinful.
While Catholics say the traditional family structure of a husband and wife with kids is ideal, the survey showed that large majorities think it's fine for kids to be raised by other kinds of families: 87 percent are accepting of single parents, 83 percent of unmarried parents who live together or divorced parents, and 66 percent of gay couples with kids.
There is widespread support among American Catholics for change in church teaching, especially on the subject of contraception and allowing priests to marry.
Play Facebook
Twitter
Embed Pope Francis: Women deserve equal pay 0:23 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog
Despite the gap between church teachings and congregants' beliefs, Catholics are clinging to their religious identity: seven out of 10 said they would not leave the church for any reason.
Father Tom Reese, a senior analyst for the National Catholic Reporter, said the "all-or-nothing" approach to Catholicism has been waning since the progressive reforms of Vatican II.
"People are more educated and making up their minds on these issues, not just accepting what father says from the pulpit," he said.
"People now have a lot more personal experience with these things," he added. "They have brothers and sisters and friends who are gay, who are divorced — and they don't want to consign them to hell."
Pope Francis, who is coming to the U.S. later this month, has won fans for a less judgmental approach to Catholic rule-breakers. Just this week, he said priests can absolve women who had abortions, considered a grave sin.
Play Facebook
Twitter
Embed Reactions to Pope’s Abortion Statement 1:44 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog
But Reese said Francis' kinder-gentler approach and the liberal attitudes of some American devotees doesn't mean church teaching will be changing anytime soon.
"We have great impatience as Americans. We want things now," he said. "But this pope is trying lead a 1.2 billion-member organization with thousands of bishops from around the world, and he's not simply going to get on his throne and change policy."
Play Facebook
Twitter
Embed More Americans Are Not Affiliated with a Religion 0:46 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog
Correction: Figures in this story for Catholics who attend Mass regularly have been changed. The figures in an earlier version referred to the views of regular church attendees of all religions. ||||| 45% of Americans Are Catholic or Connected to Catholicism
When Pope Francis arrives in the U.S. for the World Meeting of Families later this month, he will find a Catholic public that is remarkably accepting of a variety of non-traditional families, according to a new Pew Research Center survey that provides an in-depth look at American Catholics’ views on family life, sexuality and Catholic identity.
Nine-in-ten U.S. Catholics say a household headed by a married mother and father is an ideal situation for bringing up children. But the survey shows that large majorities think other kinds of families – those headed by parents who are single, divorced, unmarried or gay – are OK for raising children, too.
This may be in part because Francis’ American flock is experiencing life in all its modern complexity. According to the survey, one-in-four Catholics have gone through a divorce. One-in-ten have not only divorced but also remarried. One-in-ten are living with a romantic partner, sans wedding, and more than four-in-ten have done so at some point in their lives.
When it comes to matters of sexuality, there are a number of issues on which Catholics either mostly disagree with the church (e.g., on the question of whether Catholics should be permitted to use birth control) or are divided (e.g., on the question of whether the church should recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples).
But there also are numerous ways in which Catholics express their dedication to the church and its teachings. For example, seven-in-ten say they cannot ever imagine leaving the Catholic Church, no matter what. Nearly six-in-ten Catholics say abortion is a sin. And more than half say devotion to Mary and receiving the sacraments are “essential” to what being Catholic means to them personally. The survey shows, furthermore, that Catholics who say they attend Mass regularly (at least once a week) are consistently more in agreement with church teachings than are Catholics who attend Mass less frequently.
The survey also shows that the United States is a nation of people whose ties to Catholicism run both deep and broad. Fully 45% of Americans are connected to Catholicism in some way, including one-fifth who claim the faith as their current religion, one-tenth who were raised in the faith and have now fallen away, and a similar share who maintain a cultural connection to Catholicism.
The latter group – “cultural Catholics” – do not identify Catholicism as their religion; most are Protestants or say they have no religion. But they do identify as Catholic or partially Catholic in some other way. This attachment to Catholicism shows up in their lives in various ways: For example, one-third say they attend Mass at least occasionally. And among cultural Catholics who were raised in the church, roughly four-in-ten say they could imagine returning to the faith someday.
The new survey also suggests that Pope Francis may have a difficult time persuading Catholics in the U.S. to adopt his philosophy about excess and his focus on the environment. Though six-in-ten Catholics say working to help the poor and needy is essential to their Catholic identity, only about half as many say the same about working to address climate change. Catholics are divided on the question of whether it is sinful to spend money on luxuries without also giving to the poor, but large majorities say it is not a sin to live in a house larger than needed or to use energy without concern for the impact on the environment. The survey finds that Hispanic Catholics are much more inclined than non-Hispanic whites to express concerns about the morality of excessive consumption.
These are among the key findings of Pew Research Center’s 2015 Survey of U.S. Catholics and Family Life, conducted May 5-June 7, 2015, on landlines and cellphones among a national probability sample of 5,122 adults, including 1,016 self-identified Catholics, with a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.5 percentage points for Catholics and +/- 1.6 percentage points for the full sample. (For more information on the survey’s methodology, see Appendix A.) The survey examines Catholics’ views about a wide range of family issues that Francis and Catholics from around the world may discuss later this month at the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia and that the church’s hierarchy is expected to continue to discuss at an October Synod of Bishops in Rome.
The new survey also explores the nature and forms of Catholic identity and connections to the church, and it describes Catholics’ own experiences with divorce, remarriage and cohabitation.
Catholics’ Views on Family Life and Sexuality
Nine-in-ten U.S. Catholics say, when it comes to parenting, a married mother and father are ideal – as good as, or better than, any other arrangement for bringing up kids. But large majorities of Catholics think other family configurations generally are acceptable, too.
For example, 84% of Catholics say it is acceptable for unmarried parents who live together to bring up children, including 48% who call this as good as any other arrangement for raising children. And fully two-thirds of American Catholics think it is acceptable for same-sex couples to raise children, including 43% who say a gay or lesbian couple with children is just as good as any other kind of family.
Leaving children aside, Catholics also condone a variety of adult living arrangements that the church traditionally has frowned upon. A sizable majority (85%) think it is acceptable for a man and woman to live together as a couple outside of marriage, including more than half (55%) who say cohabitation is as good as any other living arrangement for adults. And seven-in-ten Catholics say married couples who opt not to have children have chosen a lifestyle that is as good as any other.
But the survey also shows that Catholics who attend Mass regularly are more inclined to hew to the traditional teachings of the church. For example, among Catholics who say they attend Mass weekly, six-in-ten think that a gay or lesbian couple raising children is either unacceptable (36%) or acceptable but not as good as some other arrangements for raising children (25%); just 34% say a same-sex couple raising children is as good as any other family configuration.
By comparison, roughly half of Catholics who attend Mass less than once a week (49%) say being raised by a same-sex couple is just as good an arrangement for children as any other, and an additional 22% say this is acceptable even if not as good as some other arrangements. Only about one-in-five Catholics who attend Mass less than once a week (22%) say being raised by a same-sex couple is not an acceptable arrangement for children.
(Roughly four-in-ten Catholics say they attend Mass at least once a week. For details, see Chapter 2.)
Overall, Catholics are split on whether homosexual behavior is a sin. More than four-in-ten (44%, including 59% of weekly Mass attenders) say it is, but nearly as many (39%) say it is not. And the preponderance of lay Catholic opinion in the United States today is that living with a romantic partner outside of marriage is not a sin: 54% say it is not a sin, compared with 33% who say it is sinful. Similarly, more U.S. Catholics say getting remarried after a divorce without first obtaining an annulment is not a sin (49%) than say it is a sin (35%), and the same is true on the issue of using contraceptives (66% vs. 17%).
Moreover, many U.S. Catholics would like the Catholic Church, as an institution, to adopt a more flexible or accepting approach toward people who are divorced, cohabiting with a romantic partner outside marriage or in same-sex relationships. Fully six-in-ten say the church should start allowing Catholics who are cohabiting, as well as those who have divorced and remarried without obtaining an annulment, to receive Communion (61% and 62%, respectively). And nearly half of Catholics (46%) think the church should recognize same-sex marriages.
As with attitudes about family arrangements, Catholics who report attending Mass regularly are more likely than other Catholics to accept church teachings about the sinfulness of certain sexual behaviors and living arrangements. For example, most Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week say homosexual behavior is a sin, and nearly half say cohabitation and remarriage after a divorce without an annulment are sinful. Among Catholics who attend Mass less often, fewer view these behaviors and living arrangements as sinful. Regular Mass-attending Catholics are also more likely than other Catholics to say the church should not allow cohabiting Catholics or divorced Catholics who have remarried without obtaining an annulment to receive Communion.
Catholics’ Own Experiences with Divorce, Remarriage and Cohabitation
The new survey finds that a quarter of U.S. Catholic adults have gone through a divorce, including about one-in-ten (9%) who are now remarried. About a quarter of divorced Catholics (26%, or 6% of all Catholic adults) report that they or their former spouse sought an annulment of their previous marriage. In addition, 44% of Catholics say they have cohabited with a romantic partner at some point in their lives, including 9% who are currently doing so.
In a separate survey, nearly half of Catholics (47%) said they have a close friend or family member who is gay. And in Pew Research Center’s 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Study, about 4% of Catholics described their own sexual orientation as gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Catholic Identity and Catholic Connections
Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study, which asked 35,000 Americans about their religious affiliation, beliefs and practices, found that about one-in-five U.S. adults (21%) identify their current religion as Catholic, down from 24% in a parallel study of the U.S. religious landscape conducted in 2007.
One of the goals of the new survey of U.S. Catholics is to explore a wider range of Catholic identities and connections to the church than previous polls have covered. Indeed, the new survey finds that fully 45% of Americans have some personal connection to Catholicism. For analytical purposes, this report divides them into four main groups:
Catholics : When asked, “What is your present religion, if any?” one-in-five U.S. adults say they are Catholic. Within this group, there is a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices. Some say they attend Mass at least once a week (39%), while others say they rarely or never go to Mass (16%). But all respondents who say their current religion is Catholic are included as “Catholics” in this report. And, by and large, they are deeply loyal to the Catholic Church. Fully seven-in-ten say they could never imagine leaving Catholicism, no matter what.
: When asked, “What is your present religion, if any?” one-in-five U.S. adults say they are Catholic. Within this group, there is a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices. Some say they attend Mass at least once a week (39%), while others say they rarely or never go to Mass (16%). But all respondents who say their current religion is Catholic are included as “Catholics” in this report. And, by and large, they are deeply loyal to the Catholic Church. Fully seven-in-ten say they could never imagine leaving Catholicism, no matter what. Cultural Catholics : Nearly one-in-ten Americans (9%) say they belong to a faith other than Catholicism (most often Protestantism) or are religiously unaffiliated (atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”) but nevertheless consider themselves Catholic or partially Catholic in some other way. The survey asked these respondents to explain, in their own words, why they consider themselves Catholic. They give a variety of reasons, including, most commonly, that they were raised in the Catholic faith and – even though they no longer consider Catholicism to be their religion – they still think of themselves as indelibly Catholic by culture, ancestry, ethnicity or family tradition (for more details, see Chapter 1). Smaller numbers say they were not raised in the Catholic Church but have some other attachment, such as being married to a Catholic, and therefore think of themselves as partially Catholic even though Catholicism is not their own faith. Cultural Catholics generally express an affinity for the church, including high approval ratings of Pope Francis. But they rate much lower than Catholics on measures of Catholic observance (such as attending Mass).
: Nearly one-in-ten Americans (9%) say they belong to a faith other than Catholicism (most often Protestantism) or are religiously unaffiliated (atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”) but nevertheless consider themselves Catholic or partially Catholic in some other way. The survey asked these respondents to explain, in their own words, why they consider themselves Catholic. They give a variety of reasons, including, most commonly, that they were raised in the Catholic faith and – even though they no longer consider Catholicism to be their religion – they still think of themselves as indelibly Catholic by culture, ancestry, ethnicity or family tradition (for more details, see Chapter 1). Smaller numbers say they were not raised in the Catholic Church but have some other attachment, such as being married to a Catholic, and therefore think of themselves as partially Catholic even though Catholicism is not their own faith. Cultural Catholics generally express an affinity for the church, including high approval ratings of Pope Francis. But they rate much lower than Catholics on measures of Catholic observance (such as attending Mass). Ex–Catholics : An additional 9% of Americans say they were raised in the Catholic Church but no longer consider themselves Catholic in any way, either by religion or aside from religion. Not all ex-Catholics appear to be deeply alienated from the church. More than half (59%) give Pope Francis positive ratings, and a few say they go to Mass at least once or twice a year (10%) and would choose to have the sacrament of anointing of the sick – sometimes performed as part of last rites – if they were seriously ill (9%).
: An additional 9% of Americans say they were raised in the Catholic Church but no longer consider themselves Catholic in any way, either by religion or aside from religion. Not all ex-Catholics appear to be deeply alienated from the church. More than half (59%) give Pope Francis positive ratings, and a few say they go to Mass at least once or twice a year (10%) and would choose to have the sacrament of anointing of the sick – sometimes performed as part of last rites – if they were seriously ill (9%). Other connections: About 8% of Americans were not raised Catholic and do not consider themselves Catholic, but nonetheless say they have some familial or institutional connection to the Catholic Church. This group includes people who had a Catholic parent but were not brought up in the faith. It includes some non-Catholics who say they attend Mass at a Catholic church at least a few times a year. It also includes people who have a Catholic spouse or partner but who say they don’t think of themselves, personally, as Catholic or even partially Catholic in any way. (If they did, they would be in the cultural Catholic category.)
While any attempt to divide nearly half of the U.S. population into a handful of categories is bound to blur some important distinctions, one benefit of this novel categorization is that it highlights the broad reach Catholicism has in American life, extending well beyond the population that currently self-identifies as Catholic by religion. Connections to Catholicism are particularly widespread among Latinos: 84% of Latinos in the current survey are either Catholics (45%), cultural Catholics (13%), ex-Catholics (18%) or otherwise connected to the church (8%).
The categories also make it possible to compare the views and experiences of Catholics not just with the general public, but also with non-Catholics who have varying degrees of exposure to and affinity for Catholicism. With this in mind, many of the charts and tables throughout this report show figures for Catholics as well as for cultural Catholics and ex-Catholics, as appropriate. Respondents with other kinds of connections to Catholicism are discussed less frequently, both because the nature of their connections to Catholicism are quite disparate (some have a Catholic spouse, others a Catholic parent, still others are Catholic-connected in the sense that they attend Mass at least occasionally) and because they were not raised Catholic and do not identify as Catholic today (either by religion or aside from religion).
Leaving, Joining and Staying in the Catholic Church
Another feature of the new survey is that Catholics were asked whether there was ever a period in their lives when they left the church. This allows a fuller picture of switching into and out of Catholicism, which turns out to be even more common than previously known. The new analysis shows that among all U.S. adults who were raised Catholic, fully half (52%) have left the church at some point in their lives. Of these, about one-in-five (11% of all adults who were raised Catholic) are “reverts” – people who left the church for a while and have since returned. The remainder (41% of everyone who was raised Catholic) have not returned to the faith.
Since Pope Francis’ election in 2013, there has been much discussion of a potential “Francis effect,” with some commentators speculating that the popular pope, and the winds of change he has brought to the church, might draw more former Catholics back into the fold. The survey suggests that the most likely candidates to be drawn back by a Francis effect are in the cultural Catholic category.
Most cultural Catholics (73%) express a favorable view of Pope Francis, with large majorities describing him as humble, compassionate and open-minded. Moreover, a third or more of cultural Catholics say they observe Lent, go to Mass at least occasionally and would want the sacrament of the anointing of the sick if they were very ill. And among cultural Catholics who were raised in the faith, fully 43% say they can see themselves possibly returning to the church someday.
The situation is quite different among ex-Catholics. Although they, too, generally hold the pope in high regard, an overwhelming majority of ex-Catholics (89%) say they cannot imagine themselves ever returning to the church.
(For full results on views toward Pope Francis, see the first release based on this survey, “Catholics Divided Over Global Warming.”)
Care for the Environment and Concern for the Poor
The new survey was conducted shortly before the Vatican released “Laudato Si’,” the pope’s encyclical addressing environmental issues and highlighting the disproportionate impact of climate change on the world’s poor. The survey’s results, therefore, may not reflect the full impact of the encyclical on public opinion. But even before the pope’s highly anticipated message, concern for the poor was very much on the minds of many Catholics. A solid majority (62%) said working to help the poor and needy is essential to what being Catholic means to them, and four-in-ten (41%) said they consider it sinful to buy luxuries without also donating to the poor.
It is less clear whether this concern for the poor affects Catholics’ thinking about the environment in general or climate change in particular. Prior to the publication of the encyclical, just a quarter of U.S. Catholics (23%) said it is a sin to use electricity, gasoline and other forms of energy without concern for their impact on the environment. And three-in-ten Catholics (29%) said that working to address climate change is an essential part of what being Catholic means to them, far fewer than the share who said the same about working to help the poor and needy.
Other Key Findings
Additional highlights in this report include:
Catholics are divided on the question of whether their Catholic identity is more a matter of religion or ancestry/culture. While 45% say that for them personally, being Catholic is mainly a matter of religion (or of religion and ancestry/culture), 49% say that their Catholic identity is mainly a matter of ancestry or culture (or both). And among those in the “cultural Catholics” category, fully six-in-ten (62%) say that for them, being Catholic is mainly a matter of ancestry and/or culture.
In terms of what being Catholic means to them, both Catholics by religion and cultural Catholics emphasize the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus, belief in the Resurrection and working to help the poor and needy. But cultural Catholics are less likely than Catholics by religion to place importance on devotion to Mary, receiving the sacraments or being part of a Catholic parish.
More than half of Catholics (56%) say they sometimes participate in Catholic activities, even if they don’t believe in them, because it is important to their family or friends. Roughly six-in-ten cultural Catholics (63%) and nearly half of ex-Catholics (46%) say this as well.
Many Catholics, cultural Catholics and ex-Catholics think the Catholic Church should change its position on a variety of issues, including allowing priests to marry and women to be priests, although fewer believe these changes will actually take place in the next few decades.
Younger Catholics are much more likely than older Catholics to say they could imagine leaving the Catholic Church someday. Four-in-ten (41%) Catholic adults under age 30 say they could see themselves leaving the church, compared with about a quarter (26%) of those ages 30-64 and just 14% of those ages 65 and older.
A plurality of Catholics say they receive Holy Communion every time they go to Mass (43%), and an additional 13% say they take Communion most of the time. White Catholics are much more likely to say they receive Communion regularly than are Hispanic Catholics. Fully 56% of white Catholics say they take Communion each time they attend Mass, compared with just 21% of Hispanic Catholics. Most Hispanics say they take Communion only some of the time (35%) or that they never receive the sacrament (27%).
About four-in-ten Catholics (43%) say they go to confession at least once a year, including 7% who report going monthly and 14% who say they go several times a year. Those who attend Mass at least once a week are far more likely than less-frequent church attenders to say they go to confession once a year or more (68% vs. 27%). But, on the whole, there are only modest differences on this question among women and men, younger and older Catholics, whites and Hispanics, and college graduates and those with less education.
When they pray, about half of Catholics say they rely on memorized prayers such as the Hail Mary (21%) or a combination of memorized prayers and “personal conversations” with God (31%). By comparison, eight-in-ten Protestants (82%), including nine-in-ten white evangelical Protestants (89%), say they rely primarily on personal conversations with God.
Catholics are as likely as Protestants to believe in the concept of sin, with roughly nine-in-ten in each group professing such a belief. About half of religiously unaffiliated Americans – including 47% of ex-Catholics who now say they are religious “nones” – believe that some actions are offensive to God.
Acknowledgments
Many individuals from Pew Research Center contributed to this report. Alan Cooperman, director of religion research, oversaw the effort and served as the primary editor. Gregory A. Smith, associate director for religion research, and Jessica Hamar Martínez, senior researcher, served as the primary researchers and wrote the Overview and the chapter on exploring Catholic identity. Smith also wrote the chapter on participation in Catholic rites and observances. The chapter on family matters was written by Research Associate Elizabeth Podrebarac Sciupac. Research Associate Becka Alper wrote the chapter on expectations of the church, and Senior Researcher Besheer Mohamed wrote the chapter on beliefs about sin. Copy Editor Aleksandra Sandstrom prepared the glossary, and Research Assistant Claire Gecewicz prepared the detailed tables. The report was number checked by Alper, Gecewicz, Martínez, Mohamed, Sciupac and Smith. The report was edited by Sandra Stencel, Michael Lipka, Caryle Murphy and Sandstrom. Bill Webster created the graphics.
Pew Research Center’s methods team, led by Director of Survey Research Scott Keeter and including Research Methodologists Kyley McGeeney and Andrew Mercer, provided advice on the sampling plan, questionnaire design and data analysis.
Others at Pew Research Center who provided research guidance include Michael Dimock, Claudia Deane, Carroll Doherty, Cary Funk, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Jocelyn Kiley, Andrew Kohut and Kim Parker. Communications support was provided by Stefan S. Cornibert, Erin O’Connell and Andrew Cohen. Web support was provided by Stacy Rosenberg and Benjamin Wormald.
Pew Research Center received invaluable advice on the survey questionnaire, analysis of results and writing of this report from a panel of advisers that included: Gary Adler Jr., assistant professor of sociology, The Pennsylvania State University; Tricia C. Bruce, associate professor of sociology, Maryville College; Jesuit Father Allan Figueroa Deck, distinguished scholar in pastoral theology and Latino studies, Loyola Marymount University; Mark M. Gray, senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) and director of CARA Catholic Polls (CCP), Georgetown University; John C. Green, distinguished professor of political science and director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, University of Akron; Mary Ellen Konieczny, assistant professor of sociology, University of Notre Dame; Stephen F. Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies, Catholic University of America; and W. Bradford Wilcox, associate professor of sociology and director of the National Marriage Project, University of Virginia.
Roadmap to the Report
The remainder of this report explores in greater depth many of the key findings summarized in this overview. Chapter 1 offers a detailed look at Catholic identity, including the ways in which cultural Catholics consider themselves Catholic, and documenting the beliefs and practices that Catholics say are essential to what being Catholic means to them. Chapter 2 examines participation in Catholic rites and practices. Chapter 3 explores family matters, describing Catholics’ own living arrangements and marital histories and detailing their attitudes about a number of non-traditional family arrangements. Chapter 4 examines changes Catholics say they would like to see in the church. And Chapter 5 analyzes Catholics’ attitudes about sin. ||||| Skip Ad Ad Loading... x Embed x Share Pope Francis' evolving views on controversial social issues have surprised observers. Now an unprecedented bit of research shows that USA Catholics' views may be just as surprising. USA TODAY
Pope Francis leads special prayers marking a day he has dedicated to praising and protecting nature's marvels in St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City, Sept. 1, 2015. Any Catholic priest -- rather than just bishops and selected prelates -- will be able to pardon the grave sin of abortion during the upcoming Jubilee of Mercy, Pope Francis has said. (Photo: Murizio Brambatti, EPA)
Pope Francis' evolving views on a host of fraught social issues have surprised observers since his rise to the Vatican 2-and-a-half years ago. Now, an unprecedented bit of research shows that USA Catholics' views may be just as surprising.
A trove of data out Wednesday from the Pew Research Center finds that the typical American Catholic doesn't find it sinful to use contraception or to live with a romantic partner outside of marriage. While nearly half of Catholics believe the church should not recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples, just as many think it should.
The findings come as Pope Francis this week waded into one of the thorniest topics of his papacy: abortion.
On Tuesday, he said priests can forgive the "sin of abortion" for women who are sorry about it. In a letter published by the Vatican, the pontiff — who has been striving to build a more inclusive church — said priests will have the power during a special "Holy Year of Mercy" that begins in December.
The new Pew survey of 5,122 adults found that while most Catholics — 57% — believe it's "sinful" to terminate a pregnancy, opposing abortion ranks relatively low among a list of 10 beliefs when it comes to defining what's "essential" to being a Catholic. Only about one in three respondents said opposing abortion was essential to being a Catholic. By contrast, about two-thirds said "having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" was essential.
"I think it just says something about how salient this issue is to Catholics overall," said Jessica Martinez, a Pew senior researcher. "When they think about living out their faith day to day, it doesn't seem like opposing abortion is high on the list for most Catholics."
Like much of the survey, the questions asking Catholics to rank essential beliefs are unprecedented for Pew, Martinez said, so they don't have comparable data from previous years.
In his brief tenure, which began in the spring of 2013, Pope Francis has laid out sometimes controversial stances on a host of social issues, including divorce, gay marriage and contraception.
Francis hasn't budged much from the church's view that artificial contraception is a sin — in remarks he later walked back, Francis said Catholics need not reproduce "like rabbits.'' Days later, he praised big families for "welcoming children as a true gift of God."
The Pew survey found that 66% of Catholics believe it's not sinful to use contraception — actually, that's several percentage points higher than the general public's view. Overall, 63% of Americans believe it's not sinful to use contraception.
Asked by Pew if they believe the church will "definitely" or "probably" allow contraception by 2050, 59% of Catholics agreed. And three-fourths believe the church should allow it.
Just months after being named pontiff, Francis struck a tolerant tone on gay marriage, saying, "Who am I to judge?" when asked whether gays and lesbians could be good Christians. "They shouldn't be marginalized," he said. "The tendency (to be homosexual) is not the problem. They are our brothers."
The Pew survey found that Catholics are evenly split, at 46% apiece, on whether the church should recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples. Another 8% are undecided.
On divorce, the Pope issued a call last month for the church to embrace divorced and remarried Catholics. He said such couples "are not excommunicated, and they absolutely must not be treated that way." Francis told a Vatican crowd, "They always belong to the church."
The Pew survey actually revealed that, given the choice between a divorced or same-sex couple raising children, more Catholics believe that the same-sex arrangement is "acceptable and as good as any other arrangement."
Even as the findings suggest that many USA Catholics are at odds with traditional church teachings on social issues, Martinez noted, seven in 10 say they couldn't imagine quitting Catholicism.
"They're still very much attached to their church," she said.
Contributing: Katharine Lackey, John Bacon, USA TODAY
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1Exn6FI | American Catholics may be fans of Pope Francis—but not necessarily the ideas he represents as head of the Catholic Church. A new Pew Research Center poll of 5,122 adults shows Americans who identify as Catholic are much more accepting and have a very different view on what constitutes a sin compared to the Vatican. A few takeaways, via USA Today and NBC News: Cohabitation: About 86% are willing to accept a man and a woman living together without being married. In fact, 44% of Catholics say they were guilty of the practice at some point. When it comes to gay couples, 70% support cohabitation. Non-traditional families: While 44% of Catholics say homosexual behavior is a sin, almost as many, 39%, say it isn't. Some 66% say they are accepting of gay couples who raise children, 87% accept single parents, and 83% support unmarried parents who live together. Birth control: Some 66% of US Catholics say using contraception is A-OK, compared to just 63% of the overall US population. About 75% of Catholics say the Church should allow birth control. Abortion: Though 57% of Catholics oppose abortion, a third say they support the termination of a pregnancy—a "sin" Pope Francis says can be forgiven. Divorce: A quarter of Catholics have been divorced themselves and 70% say there's nothing sinful about it. Some 49% say getting remarried isn't a sin, either, compared to 35% who believe it is. About 9% of US Catholics have been divorced and remarried. Click for more from the survey. |
Has an attorney engaged in unethical conduct when he or she secretly records a conversation? The practice is unquestionably unethical when it is done illegally; its status is more uncertain when it is done legally. The issue is complicated by the fact that the American Bar Association (ABA), whose model ethical standards have been adopted in every jurisdiction in one form or another, initially declared surreptitious recording unethical per se and then reversed its position. Moreover, more than a few jurisdictions have either yet to express themselves on the issue or have not done so for several decades. A majority of the jurisdictions on record have rejected the proposition that secret recording of a conversation is per se unethical even when not illegal. A number endorse a contrary view, however, and an even greater number have yet to announce their position. Federal and state law have long outlawed recording the conversation of another. Most jurisdictions permit recording with the consent of one party to the discussion, although a few require the consent of all parties to the conversation. Both the ABA's Code of Professional Responsibility (DR 1-102(A)(3)) and its successor, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 8.4(b)), broadly condemn illegal conduct as unethical. They also censure attorney conduct that involves "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." In 1974, the ABA concluded in Formal Opinion 337 that the rule covering dishonesty, fraud, and the like "clearly encompasses the making of recordings without the consent of all parties." Thus, "no lawyer should record any conversation whether by tapes or other electronic device, without the consent or prior knowledge of all parties to the conversation." The Opinion admitted the possibility that law enforcement officials operating within "strictly statutory limitations" might qualify for an exception. Reaction to the Opinion 337 was mixed. The view expressed by the Texas Professional Ethics Committee was typical of the states that follow the ABA approach: In February 1978, this Committee addressed the issue of whether an attorney in the course of his or her practice of law, could electronically record a telephone conversation without first informing all of the parties involved. The Committee concluded that, although the recording of a telephone conversation by a party thereto did not per se violate the law, attorneys were held to a higher standard. The Committee reasoned that the secret recording of conversations offended most persons' concept of honor and fair play. Therefore, attorneys should not electronically record a conversation without first informing that party that the conversation was being recorded. The only exceptions considered at that time were "extraordinary circumstances with which the state attorney general or local government or law enforcement attorneys or officers acting under the direction of a state attorney general or such principal prosecuting attorneys might ethically make and use secret recordings if acting within strict statutory limitations conforming to constitutional requirements," which exceptions were to be considered on a case by case basis. ... [T]his Committee sees no reason to change its former opinion. Pursuant to Rule 8.04(a)(3), attorneys may not electronically record a conversation with another party without first informing that party that the conversation is being recorded. Supreme Court of Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion No. 514 (1996). A second group of states—Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee—concurred but with an expanded list of exceptions, for example, permitting recording by law enforcement personnel generally not just when judicially supervised; or recording by criminal defense counsel; or recording statements that themselves constitute crimes such as bribery offers or threats; or recording confidential conversations with clients; or recordings made solely for the purpose of creating a memorandum for the files; or recording by a government attorney in connection with a civil matter; or recording under other extraordinary circumstances. A third group of jurisdictions refused to adopt the ABA unethical per se approach. In one form or another the District of Columbia, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin suggested that the propriety of an attorney surreptitiously recording his or her conversations where it was otherwise lawful to do so depended upon the other circumstances involved in a particular case. In 2001, the ABA issued Formal Opinion 01-422 and rejected Opinion 337 's broad proscription. Instead, Formal Op inion 01-422 concluded that: 1. Where nonconsensual recording of conversations is permitted by the law of the jurisdiction where the recording occurs, a lawyer does not violate the Model Rules merely by recording a conversation without the consent of the other parties to the conversation. 2. Where nonconsensual recording of private conversations is prohibited by law in a particular jurisdiction, a lawyer who engages in such conduct in violation of that law may violate Model Rule 8.4, and if the purpose of the recording is to obtain evidence, also may violate Model Rule 4.4. 3. A lawyer who records a conversation without the consent of a party to that conversation may not represent that the conversation is not being recorded. 4. Although the Committee is divided as to whether the Model Rules forbid a lawyer from recording a conversation with a client concerning the subject matter of the representation without the client's knowledge, such conduct is, at the least, inadvisable. There seems to be no dispute that where it is illegal to record a conversation without the consent of all of the participants, it is unethical as well. Recording requires the consent of all parties in 10 states: California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Only two states, Colorado and South Carolina, have expressly rejected the approach of the ABA's F ormal Opinion 01-422 since its release. Yet a number of other states have yet to withdraw earlier opinions that declared surreptitious records ethically suspect: Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and Kentucky. A substantial number of states, however, agree with the ABA's F ormal Opinion 01-422 that a recording with the consent of one but not all of the parties to a conversation is not unethical per se unless it is illegal or contrary to some other ethical standard. This is the position of Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. Four other states—Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oklahoma—issued comparable opinions before the ABA's F ormal Opinion 01-422 was released and have never withdrawn or modified them. Yet, even among those that now believe that secret recording is not per se unethical, some ambivalence seems to remain. Nebraska, for example, refers to full disclosure as the "better practice." New Mexico notes that the "prudent New Mexico lawyer" hesitates to record without the knowledge of all parties. Minnesota cautions that surreptitiously recording client conversations "is certainly inadvisable" except under limited circumstances. Although the largest block of states endorses this view, whether it is a majority view is uncertain because a number of jurisdictions have apparently yet to announce a position, for example, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Besides Rule 8.4's prohibition on unlawful, fraudulent, deceptive conduct, the Code of Professional Conduct also condemns making a false statement of material fact or law. As a consequence even when surreptitious recording is not considered a per se violation, it will be considered unethical if it also involves a denial that the conversation is being recorded or some similar form of deception. While illegality and false statements exist as exceptions to a general rule that permits surreptitious recording, evidence gathering is an exception to a general rule that prohibits such recordings. The earlier ABA opinion conceded a possible exception when prosecuting attorneys engaged in surreptitious recording pursuant to court order. Various jurisdictions have expanded the exception to include defense attorneys as well as prosecutors. Some have included use in the connection with other investigations as well. Other circumstances thought to permit a lawyer to record a conversation without the consent of all of the parties to the discussion in one jurisdiction or another include instances when the lawyer does so in a matter unrelated to the practice of law; or when the recorded statements themselves constitute crimes such as bribery offers or threats; or when the recording is made solely for the purpose of creating a memorandum for the files; or when the "the lawyer has a reasonable basis for believing that disclosure of the taping would significantly impair pursuit of a generally accepted societal good." What follows are excerpts or summaries from opinions of the various bar associations that address the issue of whether members of the bar may record a conversation without the consent of each of the participants. Alabama State Bar Disciplinary Commission Formal Opinion 1983-183 : "In issuing the opinion heretofore published in the May, 1984, Alabama Lawyer as a precedent we relied primarily upon Formal Opinion 337 (1974) of the American Bar Association Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. Upon reconsideration we conclude that there is no provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility of the Alabama State Bar which directly precludes an attorney who is one of the conversants from recording conversations as described herein. One member of the Disciplinary Commission respectfully dissents and is of the opinion that an attorney's recording of such conversations without the knowledge and consent of all parties thereto in and of itself constitutes 'deceit" [DR 1-102(a)(4)]. In issuing this modification, the Disciplinary Commission expresses its intent that this opinion is to be strictly construed." Alabama State Bar Disciplinary Commission Formal Opinion 1983-183 (1984)(reprinted in Alabama Lawyer (May, 1984)(reconsidered and modified as noted above)): "It is unethical for an attorney or his investigator or other person acting on behalf of an attorney to make recordings of conversations with clients, other attorneys, witnesses or other without prior knowledge and consent of all parties to the conversation. Alaska Bar A s s ociation Eth ics Comm ittee, Ethics Opinion No. 2003-1 (2003): "In summary, the Committee is of the opinion that, while the better practice may be for attorneys to disclose or obtain consent prior to recording a conversation, attorneys are not per se prohibited from ever recording conversations without the express permission of all other parties to the conversation. Absent conduct reflecting actual misrepresentations, deceit, or fraud when taping the conversation, or circumstances in which the taping violated existing law or infringed on a specific court defined privacy right, an attorney does not act unethically by recording a conversation with a third party without disclosure of such recording." Alaska Bar As s ociation Eth ics Comm ittee Ethics Opinion No. 92-2 (1992)(withdrawn and replaced by Ethics Opinion No. 2003-1 above): "An attorney may not ethically use a transcript of a telephone conversation with knowledge that another attorney surreptitiously recorded it because the use involves the attorney in the conduct that made the original act of recording unethical under DR 1-102(A)(4)." Alaska Bar Association Ethics Committee Ethics Opinion No. 91-4 (1991)(withdrawn and replaced by Ethics Opinion No. 2003-1 above): "The Committee has been asked to review Ethics Opinion 78-1, which held it was unethical for an attorney to record a telephone conversation in which the attorney participated without the consent of the other party and advises whether that opinion was applicable to an attorney who is party to a family law matter, acting in a personal capacity. "... [T]he Committee is of the opinion that the findings and assumptions of the American Bar Association Committee expressed in ABA Formal Opinion 337 remain valid today: that a failure to give notice of the recording of a conversation to all parties is the equivalent of a representation that the conversation is not being recorded, and is thus deceitful in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). "With regard to actions taken by a lawyer in a personal rather than professional capacity, the scope of DR 1-102(A)(4) is viewed as extending beyond actions in a professional capacity and extends to the lawyer's person or private conduct which reflects on honesty or character." State Bar of Arizona, Committee on the Rules of Professional Responsibility, Opinion No. 00-04 (2000): "We hasten to add that, while an attorney may advise a client about the client's right to surreptitiously tape record conversations, the attorney may not participate in the surreptitious tape recording of a conversation, except as permitted by our prior opinions. Further, even if a client does not raise the issue of surreptitious tape recording, the attorney may on the attorney's own initiative advise the client about the client's right to surreptitiously tape record conversations under Arizona law. Finally, attorneys may not sue third parties to tape record conversations which an attorney ethically cannot tape record under the prior opinions of the Committee." State Bar of Arizona, Committee on the Rules of Professional Responsibility, Opinion No. 95-03 (1995): "Opinion 75-13 first adopted the following general rule concerning the ethical propriety of secretly recording conversations: 'We are of the opinion that it is improper for a lawyer to record by tape recorder or other electronic device any conversation between the lawyer or other person, or between third persons, without the consent or prior knowledge of all parties to the conversation. This prohibition likewise precludes a lawyer from doing directly through a non-lawyer agent what he may not himself do.' "Opinion 75-13 then recognized that there are certain necessary exceptions to this rule. Four were identified: 1. An attorney secretly may record 'an utterance that is itself a crime, such as an offer of a bribe, a threat, an attempt to extort, or an obscene telephone call.' 2. A lawyer may secretly record a conversation in order to protect against perjury. 3. A prosecutor or police officer may secretly record a conversation during the course of a criminal investigation. 4. The opinion recognized 'that secret recording would be proper where specifically authorized by statute, court rule, or court order.' ... "The Committee most recently considered this subject in Opinion 90-02, dated March 16, 1990. This opinion broadened the conclusions of Opinion 75-13 in two ways. First, it stated that Opinion 75-13's distinction, in a criminal law setting, 'between surreptitious recording to protect against perjury (which the opinion permitted) and surreptitious recording for impeachment purposes (which the opinion prohibited) does not appear to have any basis in the present Rules of Professional Conduct.' Second, we extended the criminal law enforcement exceptions of Opinion No. 75-13 to lawyers retained to represent criminal defendants.... "We conclude that the secret tape recording of a telephone conversation with opposing counsel involves an element of deceit and misrepresentation.... Attorneys do not expect that their opponent is recording a telephone conversation." Recording face to face or telephone conversations is a crime under California law, Cal. Pen. Code §§631-632.7. There is no general one party consent exception, although there are exceptions for law enforcement, Cal. Pen. Code §§633, 633.1, and for recording conversations related to extortion, kidnapping, bribery and felonies involving violence, Cal. Pen. Code §633.5. Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee, Ethics Opinion 112 (2003): "Because surreptitious recording of conversations or statements by an attorney may involve an element of trickery or deceit, it is generally improper for an attorney to engage in surreptitious recording even if the recording is legal under state law. For the same reason, a lawyer generally may not direct or even authorize an agent to surreptitiously record conversations, and may not use the 'fruit' of such improper recordings. However, where a client lawfully and independently records conversations, the lawyer is not required to advise the client to cease its recording, nor to decline to use the lawfully and independently obtained recording. "The Committee believes that, assuming that relevant law does not prohibit the recording, there are two categories of circumstances in which attorneys generally should be ethically permitted to engage in surreptitious recording or to direct surreptitious recording by another: (a) in connection with actual or potential criminal matters, for the purpose of gathering admissible evidence; and (b) in matters unrelated to a lawyer's representation of a client or the practice of law, but the lawyer's private life." People v. Smith, 778 P.2d 685, 686, 687 (Colo. 1989): "In May of 1984, the respondent agreed to perform undercover activities of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with respect to an investigation of the complaining witness. Upon advice of an assistant state attorney general, CBI representatives requested that the respondent record telephone conversations secretly. After obtaining assurances from a member of the attorney general's office that such conduct would not violate the Code of Professional responsibility, the respondent agreed.... The undisclosed use of a recording device necessarily involves elements of deception and trickery which do not comport with the high standards of candor and fairness to which all attorneys are bound. We conclude that these acts violated the provisions of DRl-102(A)(4). "The respondent asserts that his conduct should be deemed an exception to these ethical considerations because he was acting under the direction of and pursuant to the advice of law enforcement officials.... The respondent, however, was a private attorney, not a prosecuting attorney." District of Columbia Bar Opinion No. 323 (2004): "The Virginia Standing Committee on Legal Ethics recently recognized the parallel between law enforcement and intelligence activity in an opinion that is consistent with our views. In Va. Legal Ethics Opinion 1738 (2000), the Virginia Standing Committee considered whether the ethical rule prohibiting non-consensual tape recording then in effect in Virginia applied to law enforcement undercover activities. The Virginia Standing Committee concluded that it did not.... The reasoning is equally persuasive to this Committee." D istrict of C olumbia Bar Opinion No. 229 (1992): "A lawyer who tapes a meeting attended by him, his client, and representatives of a federal agency investigating his client commits no ethical violation, even if he does not reveal that a tape is being made, so long as the attorney makes no affirmative misrepresentations about the taping. The agency reasonably should not expect that the preliminary phase discussions are confidential. The agency also should expect that such discussions will be memorialized in some fashion by the investigated party's attorney and that the record made may be used to support a claim against the agency." Recording face to face or telephone conversations is a crime under Florida law, Fla. Stat. Ann. §834.03. There is a one party consent exception for those acting under color of law (police officers), and a general all party consent exception of those not acting under color of law, I d. The Florida Rules of Professional Conduct declare that a lawyer shall not "... commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects," Rule 8.4(b). Haw aii Formal Opinion No. 30 (1988) (this opinion is no longer listed among those currently in effect by the Disciplinary Board of the Hawaii Supreme Court): "Inquiry has been made concerning the ethical propriety of the electronic recording by a lawyer of a conversation between the lawyer and another person without that person's prior knowledge and consent.... [E]ven if such conduct is not illegal, it offends the traditional high standard of fairness and condor which should characterize the practice of law and must be deemed improper, except in the special situations mentioned below.... Therefore no lawyer should record or cause to be recorded any conversation, whether by taps or other electronic device, without the consent or prior knowledge of all parties to the conversation. There may be extraordinary circumstances in which secret recordings of conversations by lawyers are rendered permissible, such as where, for example, sanctioned by express statutory or judicial authority. This opinion is not directed toward such exceptions, each of which must be considered on its own merits." Idaho State Bar Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Formal Opinion 130 (1991): "The Committee has been asked to answer the question of whether it is a violation of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct to record a telephone conversation without notifying the other party or parties that the conversation is being recorded. Particular attention is directed to instances involving conversations with clients, opposing counsel, potential witnesses, and members of the public. The recording of telephone conversations is permitted by Federal Law ... and by Idaho Law.... As long as one party to the conversation consents, a recordation may be made, without notice to any other participant in the conversation. Therefore, the recordation of a telephone conversation, in the manner prescribed by these statutes would not be criminal conduct prohibited by IRPC 8.4(b). The Committee feels, however, that such recordation would nonetheless be a violation IRPC 8.4(d) which states: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: ... (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.... It is the opinion of the Committee that undisclosed recordation of communications between attorneys, or an attorney and a potential witness does not encourage the judicial system's objectives. People are more cautious, and therefore less candid in their discussions, when they know, or believe their conversations are being recorded. "... As to clients, all conversations between an attorney and the client are confidential, which every client has a right to expect and require. Therefore, the recordation of such a conversation should not impede the candid discussions between the client and the attorney." Recording face to face or telephone conversations is a crime under Illinois law, Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. ch.720 §5/14-2. There are law enforcement exemptions, but there is no general one party consent exemption, Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. ch. 720 §5/14-3. The Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct declare that a lawyer "shall not ... commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects," Rule 8.4(a)(3). Indiana State Bar Association, Legal Ethics Committee, Opinion No.1, 2 000 (2000), Res Gestae 39 (March 2000): "... Although it is not illegal in the state of Indiana to tape record another person without that person's knowledge, it is unethical for an attorney to do this to another attorney in the context of a pending legal matter without informing him first." Indiana State Bar Association, Legal Ethics Subc ommittee, Formal Opinion No.2, 1975 (1975), Res Gestae 234 (July 1975): "... It is therefore our opinion that it would be improper for an attorney to record any conversation, whether by tapes or other electronic device, without the consent or prior knowledge of all parties to the conversation. The only exception to this rule might occur under the circumstances described in the last paragraph above quoted [relating to recording for law enforcement purposes]." Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct, Ethics Opinion 98-28 (1999): "Question has arisen as to the propriety of attorneys advising clients who are protected by court orders in domestic abuse cases that they may record contacts initiated by defendants in violation of such orders without telling the defendant or obtaining consent. "It is the opinion of the Board that the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers does not prohibit such conduct and it is believed that advice may be given clients provided they are parties to the conversation." Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct, Ethics Opinion 95 - 09 (1995): "The Board is of the opinion that Formal Opinion 83-16 is correct and it hereby is reaffirmed." Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct, Ethics Opinion 83 - 16 (1982): "With certain exceptions spelled out in this opinion [relating to recording for purposes of law enforcement investigations], no lawyer should record any conversation whether by tapes or other electronic device, without the consent or prior knowledge of all parties to the conversation." Iowa State Bar Association v. Mollman , 488 N.W.2d 168, 169-70, 171-72 (Iowa 1992): "FBI agents offered Mollman immunity from prosecution if he would set up a cocaine 'buy' from Johnson, [his former client and long-time friend]. He was unwilling to prompt Johnson to deliberately break the law. Moreover, he thought that such a buy would mischaracterize Johnson as a dealer when, in fact, he believed Johnson had a drug problem and would secure cocaine for Mollman merely out of friendship. "Mollman did agree, however, to wear a concealed body microphone so that federal agents could monitor and record a conversation with Johnson. The pretext for the conversation was Mollman's and Johnson's concern that several mutual friends had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. Armed with a script written by federal agents, Mollman suggested that he and Johnson get their stories straight about their past drug usage. This intentionally incriminating conversation, and Mollman's secret recording of it, took place in Johnson's home.... The committee charged Mollman with violating the following provisions of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility: DR l-102(A)(4) ... DR 4-l0l(B)(lawyer shall not knowingly reveal the confidence or secret of a client or use them to lawyer's own advantage) ... In addition, the committee alleged that Mollman's conduct violated the committee's formal advisory opinion 83-16 which provides that 'no lawyer should record any conversation whether by tapes or other electronic device, without the consent or prior knowledge of all parties to the conversation.' This rule adopted in 1982 and modeled after ABA Formal Opinion 337, makes such recordings unethical even if legal under federal law.... "Beyond this proof of deceitful conduct, the committee sought to prove that Mollman violated formal opinion 83-16. As noted earlier, the opinion outlaws any surreptitious recording of conversations by lawyers.... Not all recordings, however, are necessarily banned: There may be extraordinary circumstances in which the Attorney General of the United States or the principal prosecuting attorney of state or local government or law enforcement attorneys or officer acting under the direction of the Attorney General or such principal prosecuting attorneys might ethically make and use secret recordings if acting within strict statutory limitations conforming to constitutional requirements.... "Mollman does not contest the wisdom or spirit of formal opinion 83-16 on appeal. He merely claims that because he acted 'under the direction of federal prosecutors, he should benefit form the rule's exception. The commission was not so convinced, and neither are we. First, the plain language of the rule limits its exception to 'law enforcement attorneys or officers' It makes no room for private citizens acting as government agents as Mollman describes himself.... Second, the rule itself declines to make the exception automatic.... Examining the exception in light of the present case, we are unable to justify its application." Kan sas Bar Ass ociation Opinion 96-9 (1997): "A lawyer inquired as to any ethical objections to his recording all telephone calls made from or received in his office for purposes of internal office management. He does not intend to inform those outside of his office of the practice. Even assuming such recording is legal, the practice of surreptitiously recording telephone conversations is considered offensive to the traditional high standards of fairness and candor that must characterize the practice of law. It is unprofessional for lawyers to secretly record conversations except with the consent of all parties—that are to be used for any purpose other than an accurate recital in memoranda to the files." K entucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion KBA E-279 (1984): An attorney who is not representing a client in a criminal case may not record conversations with witnesses, opposing counsel, clients, judges, or the public at large without the prior knowledge or consent of all parties to the conversation. In a criminal case, however, both defense and prosecution may record with the consent of one party to the conversation. Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion KBA E-289 (1984): An attorney may not suggest that a client secretly record telephone conversations for use in a civil matter. The Code proscribes an attorney surreptitiously recording conversations directly or indirectly without the consent of all parties. Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, Professional Ethics Commission, Opinion No. 168 (1999): "We conclude, therefore, that, however much we would like to do so, we cannot find that electronically recording a conversation without the knowledge of the other participant(s) is per se prohibited by the text of the rule.... However, the fact that the act of recording is not per se unethical still requires that the recording attorney's conduct must otherwise not be dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful or involve misrepresentation." Massachusetts outlaws the recording without the consent of all parties to the conversation or when done for certain law enforcement purposes, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272, §99. The Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct state that that it is unethical for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that "reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects," Mass. R. Prof. Cond. 8.4(b). Michigan Bar Association, Ethics Opinion RI-309 (1998): "Under Michigan law, it is not a violation of the Michigan eavesdropping statutes, MCL 750.539 et seq., for a participant in a conversation to secretly record that conversation without the consent of the other participants.... The committee believes that ABA Formal Opinion 337 is over broad, and the rationale which supported its statement some twenty-four years ago has weakened. Whether a lawyer may ethically record a conversation without the consent or prior knowledge of the parties involved is situation specific, not unethical per se, and must be determined on a case by case basis." Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Repeal of Opinion No. 18, Minnesota Lawyer (June 3, 2002): "Lawyers should be aware that secret recording is illegal in some states and therefore prohibited by Rule 4.4. Moreover, lawyers who falsely deny recording conversations will be subject to discipline under Rules 4.1 and 8.4(c). And finally, although it may not be unethical to record client conversations, except in very limited circumstances (e.g., client is making threats to the lawyer) it is certainly inadvisable to do so without disclosure." Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Opinion No. 18 (1996)(repealed 2002): "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer, in connection with the lawyer's professional activities, to record any conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation, provided as follows: 1. This opinion does not prohibit a lawyer from recording a threat to engage in criminal conduct; 2. This opinion does not prohibit a lawyer engaged in the prosecution or defense of a criminal matter from recording a conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation; 3. This opinion does not prohibit a government lawyer charged with civil law enforcement authority from making or directing others to make a recording of a conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation; 4. This opinion does not prohibit a lawyer from giving legal advice about the legality of recording a conversation." Mississippi Bar v. Attorney ST., 621 So.2d 229 (Miss. 1993): "[T]he Mississippi State Bar filed a formal complaint ... for surreptitiously taping two telephone conversations with an acting City Judge and one with the City Police Chief, and for telling the Chief he was not recording their conversation when, in fact he was.... In Attorney M v. Mississippi State Bar , 621 So.2d 220 (Miss. 1992), we held that, under certain circumstances, an attorney may tape a conversation with a potential party opponent without his knowledge or consent. In that case, Attorney M taped a series of conversations with a doctor who had treated a patient who later became a plaintiff in a malpractice action against another physician. Although the doctor assumed the conversations were taped, he did not know until he received a letter so indicating from Attorney M. "In Attorney M , we revisited our opinion in Netterville [v. Mississippi State Bar , 397 So.2d 878 (Miss. 1981)], wherein we held 'that surreptitious tape recording is not unethical when the act, 'considered within the context of the circumstances then existing' does not rise to the level of dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.' 621 So.2d. at 233, quoting Netterville , 397 So.2d at 883. In so ruling, we expressed our preference for a broader test than that espoused by Formal Op. 337.... Accordingly, we found in Attorney M that: Under certain circumstances, for example, an attorney may be justified in making a surreptitious recording in order to protect himself or his client from the effects of future perjured testimony. On the other hand, an attorney who uses a secret recording for blackmail or to otherwise gain unfair advantage has clearly committed an unethical—if not-illegal act. Ethical complications arise not so much from surreptitious recordings per se as from the manner in which attorneys use them. The Netterville context-of-the-circumstances test contemplates this distinction; Formal Op. 337 does not. 621 So.2d at 224 "Looking at the context of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that Attorney ST was acting to protect his client's interests in surreptitiously taping the telephone conversations with the judge and the police chief. Pursuant to our decision in Attorney M, this action may well be justified and cannot be found unethical. We find, however, that Attorney ST stepped over the line in violation of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct when he blatantly denied, when asked, that he was taping the conversations.... Attorney ST's actions therefore violate the very precepts of Rule 4.1. As the Rule states: 'In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly: a. make a false statement of material fact to a third person.'" Missouri Supreme Court Advisory Committee, Formal Opinion 123 (2006): "An attorney may record a conversation, in which the attorney is a party, without notifying the other parties to the conversation, unless other actors are present including, but not limited to: (1) laws prohibiting the recording in the jurisdiction in which the recording would occur, (2) the attorney states or implies that the conversation is not being recorded, or (3) the conversation involves a current client of the attorney.... If the recording is of a conversation with a current client, the attorney must give some notice to the client that the attorney is, or may be, recording the conversation." Missouri Supreme Court Advisory Committee, Misc. Opinion 30 (1978)(withdrawn): "QUESTION: Can an attorney ethically record a conversation with any person, without prior knowledge of that person? "ANSWER: No. The Committee adopts ABA Op. 337 ... This of course excepts those actions carried on by law enforcement agencies under control of court orders." Recording face to face or telephone conversations is a crime under Montana law unless all the parties consent, Mont. Code Ann.§45-8-213. The Montana Rules of Professional Conduct declare: "a lawyer shall not ... commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects," Rule 8.4(b). Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 06-07 (2006): "It is the opinion of this Committee that, while the better practice for attorneys is to disclose or obtain consent prior to recording a conversation, attorneys are not per se prohibited from ever recording conversations without the express permission of all other parties to the conversation. Absent conduct reflecting actual misrepresentation, deceit or fraud when taping a conversation, or circumstances in which the taping violated existing law or infringed upon a specific court-defined privacy right, attorney does not act unethically by recording a conversation with a third party without disclosure of such recording." Recording face to face or telephone conversations is a crime under the laws of New Hampshire, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §570-A:2. There are law enforcement and communications carrier exceptions, but there is no one party consent exception, Id. The New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct declare: "a lawyer shall not ... commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects," Rule 8.4(b). New Mexico Ethics Advisory Committee, Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2005 -03 (2005): "The Rules of Professional Conduct preclude the secret recording of a witness interview by a lawyer, or anyone acting under the lawyer's control, if such a recording would involve deceiving the witness either by commission or omission.... Despite the withdrawal of ABA Formal Opinion 337, the Committee believes that the prudent New Mexico lawyer will still be hesitant to record conversations without the other party's knowledge ... In doing so, the Committee does not mean to opine that under no circumstances would the practice be permissible." New Mexico Ethics Advisory Committee, Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 1996-2 (1996): Members of the bar are advised that there are no clear guidelines and that the prudent attorney avoids surreptitious recording. Association of the Bar of City of New York , Formal Opinion No. 2003 -02 (2004): "N.Y. City 80-95 and 95-10 are modified. A lawyer may tape a conversation without disclosure of that fact to all participants if the lawyer has a reasonable basis for believing that disclosure of the taping would significantly impair pursuit of a generally accepted societal good. However, undisclosed taping entails a sufficient lack of candor and a sufficient element of trickery as to render it ethically impermissible as a routine practice." Association of the Bar of City of New York , Formal Opinion No. 1995-10 (1995): "May a lawyer tape record a telephone or in-person conversation with an adversary attorney without informing that attorney that the conversation is being taped? "The inquirer wishes systematically to tape record conversations between herself and opposing counsel without advising opposing counsel that the conversations are being recorded. She asks whether secretly recording conversations in this way whether the conversations she seeks to record will be by telephone or in person, our conclusion is the same in either case. We answer the inquiry in the negative.... Our opinion is based solely on the facts set forth above and is limited to the context of attorney-attorney taping. We express no opinion as to whether the Committee might, in the future, reach a different conclusion upon the submission of an inquiry involving different facts or extenuating circumstances." NY County Lawyer ' s As s ociation Opinion No. 696 (1993): "Numerous bar associations have opposed lawyers' participation in secret recordings of telephone conversations on the ground that such conduct involves 'dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation' within the meaning of DR 1-102(A)(4). See, e.g., ABA 337; N.Y. State 328 (1974). In fact, this Committee stated that '[t]he tape recording of a telephone conversation between two attorneys, whom the Committee assumes are adversaries, by one of the participants for future use in pending prospective litigation is underhanded and deceptive and fails to satisfy the standards of Canon 22 [of the Canons of Professional Ethics (1908) requiring that all acts of a lawyer be characterized by candor and fairness], and, consequently is unethical and nonprofessional.' N.Y. County 552 (1967). "Both ABA 337 and N.Y. State 328 prohibit secret recordings unless sanctioned by express statutory or judicial authority. The ABA opinion, while citing various state ethics opinions, provides no independent reason for the prohibition. Likewise, the N.Y. State opinion provides no independent reason for prohibiting secret recordings, but rather relies on such concepts as 'elemental fairness.' We find such reliance unpersuasive for reason articulated by the New York City ethics committee: [W]e do not believe that ethical committees are free to determine what conduct is unfair or lacking in candor in a vacuum. Unlike more explicit ethical prohibitions, concepts like candor and fairness take their content from a host of sources—articulated and unarticulated—which presumably reflect a consensus of the bar's or society's judgments. Without being unduly relativistic, it is nevertheless possible that conduct that is considered unfair or even deceitful in one context may not be so considered in another. N.Y. City 80-95 (1981). "We believe that the secret recording of a telephone conversation, where one party to the conversation has consented, cannot be deceitful per se. Since such conduct [is lawful under New York and federal law], a party to a telephone conversation should reasonably expect the possibility that his or her conversation may be recorded.... It should be noted that there may be circumstances in which a secret recording would violate specific provisions of the Code and thus would be ethically improper.... [I]f a lawyer is asked by the other party to the conversation whether the discussion is being recorded, the lawyer may not falsely assert that the conversation is not being recorded." New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 515 (1979): "... In N.Y. State [Op.] 328 (1974) we concluded that except in special situations it is improper for a lawyer engaged in private practice to record electronically a conversation with another attorney or any other person without first advising the other party. We said that even if secret electronic recording of a conversation with one party's consent is not illegal, it offends the traditional standards of fairness and candor that should characterize the practice of law." North Carolina State Bar Ethics Opinion RPC 192 (1995): "A lawyer may not listen to an illegal tape recording made by his client nor may he use the information on the illegal tape recording to advance his client's case." North Carolina State Bar Ethics Opinion RPC 171 (1994): "Is it unethical for an attorney to make a tape recording of a conversation with an opposing attorney regarding a pending case, without disclosing to the opposing attorney that the conversation is being recorded? No.... However, as a matter of professionalism, lawyers are encouraged to disclose to the other lawyer that a conversation is being tape recorded." Ohio B oard of Com missioners on Griev ances & . Dis cipline Opinion No. 2012-1 (2012): " A surreptitious or secret, recording of a conversation by a Ohio lawyer is not a per se violation of Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) if the recording does not violate the law of the jurisdiction in which the recording took place.... Although surreptitious recording is not inherently unethical, the acts associated with a lawyer's surreptitious recording may constitute a violation of Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(c) or other Rules of Professional Conduct. As a basic rule, Ohio lawyers should not record conversations with clients without their consent.... and Ohio lawyers should also refrain form nonconsensual recordings of conversations with persons who are prospective clients ..." Ohio B oar d of Com missioners on . Griev ances & Dis cipline Opinion No. 97-3 (1997)(withdrawn): "[T]his Board advises that an attorney in the course of legal representation should not make surreptitious recordings of his or her conversations with clients, witnesses, opposing parties, opposing counsel, or others without their notification or consent. The act of surreptitious recording by attorneys may violate DR 1-102(A)(4) unless the act when considered in the context of the circumstances does not rise to the level of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The burden would be upon each individual attorney to justify on a case by case basis why the facts and circumstances surrounding the surreptitious recording did not violate DR 1-102(A)(4). Recognized exceptions to the prohibition on surreptitious recording include the prosecuting and law enforcement attorney exception; the criminal defense attorney exception; and the extraordinary circumstances exception." Oklahoma Bar Association Ethics Opinion No. 307 (1994): Surreptitious recording is not per se unethical. A lawyer may secretly record his or her conversations without the knowledge or consent of other parties to the conversation unless the recording is unlawful or in violation of some ethical standard involving more than simply recording (e.g., lying about whether conversation is being recorded). Ore gon State Bar Ass ociation Formal Opinion No. 2005 - 156 (2005): "Oregon law allows one party to a telephone conversation to record the conversation without notice to or consent of the other person. However, in-person conversations may not be recorded unless all persons participating know or have notice that the conversation is being recorded. A lawyer who makes a recording in knowing disregard of statutory prohibitions to the contrary would be in violation of Oregon PRPC 3.3(a)(5), which prohibits a lawyer from knowingly engaging in illegal conduct. See also Oregon RPC 8.4(a)(2), which makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to '[c]ommit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honest, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.' If the substantive law does not prohibit a recording, however, and in the absence of conduct that would affirmatively lead a person to believe that no recording would be made, the lawyer may make the recording." Ore gon State Bar Ass ociation Formal Opinion No. 1991-74 (1991): Oregon permits recording telephone conversations with one party consent, but requires the consent of all parties to record face to face conversations. An attorney may not engage in illegal conduct and therefore may not record a face to face conversation, but with one party consent he or she may record a telephone conversation "in absence of conduct which would reasonably lead an individual to believe that no recording would be made." Recording face to face or telephone conversations is a crime under Pennsylvania law, Pa. Stat. Ann. tit.18 §5703. There are law enforcement exemptions, but there is no general one party consent exemption, Pa. Stat. Ann. tit.l8 §5703. The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct declare that "a lawyer shall not ... commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects," Rule 8.4(b). South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Committee Ethics Advisory Opinion 08-13 (2008): "... While representing a client, a lawyer may not surreptitiously record any conversation, subject to certain law enforcement related exceptions.... recording of anonymous threats received over the telephone, recording of anonymous information received over the telephone, recording attempts to bribe the recording attorney, and cooperating with law enforcement in a legitimate criminal investigation. As noted in Anonymous II , the Court in Anonymous I relied primarily on ABA Formal Opinion 337 ... and each South Carolina opinion since has relied in turn on Anonymous I . Formal Opinion 337, however ... was ultimately withdrawn in 2001 by ABA Formal Opinion 01-422. South Carolina has not correspondingly withdrawn its prohibition.... [T]he Committee advises that surreptitious recording by a lawyer is ethically permissible only when a) the lawyer is not acting as a lawyer, as a public official, or in any other position of trust and b) such recording is not otherwise prohibited by law." South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Committee Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-17 (1992): "Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) states that '[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... [e]ngage in conduct involving dishonest, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.' The South Carolina Supreme Court has construed this language to preclude an attorney from recording any conversation or portion of a conversation without the prior knowledge and consent of all parties to the conversation, irrespective of the purpose for which the recording is made. In re Anonymous , 404 S.E. 2d 513 (S.C. 1991). The Court has also held that the language of Rule 8.4(d) precludes an attorney from engaging in a scheme to entrap and secretly record a Family Court Judge who is allegedly involved in judicial misconduct. In re Warner , 335 S.E.2d 90 (S.C. 1985). "The Court's single exception to these rules applies when an attorney records a conversation made with the prior consent or at the request of an appropriate law enforcement agency in the course of a legitimate criminal investigation.... [W]hile Warner can be read narrowly only to prohibit an attorney from assisting a client to secretly record conversations with a judge which would then be used to prove judicial misconduct, Warner can also be read broadly to prohibit an attorney from counseling or assisting anyone to secretly record any conversation with anyone. Until Warner is clarified, this area remains uncertain and the prudent course would seem to be to give Warner a broad reading." Midwest Motor Sports v. Arctic Cat Sales, Inc ., 347 F.3d 693, 698-99 (8 th Cir. 2003): Appellate court upholds sanctions imposed on attorneys for conduct unethical under South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct involve inappropriate contact with a represented party witness and surreptitious recording of witness statements while posing as a customer. "Although the violations of Rule 4.2 alone would be sufficient to impose the evidentiary sanctions at issue here, they are further justified by the specific circumstances surrounding those violations. While there is no evidence that Arctic Cat's counsel directly contacted Becker or 'Bill,' the Model Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit a lawyer from violating the Rules 'through the acts of another.' Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 8.4(a). Mohr's interviews took place under false and misleading pretenses, which Mohr made no effort to correct. Not only did Mohr pose as a customer, he wore a hidden device that secretly recorded his conversations with Becker and 'Bill.' "Model Rule 8.4(c) prohibits 'conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.' The district court found that Mohr's conduct in making secret recordings of his conversations with Becker and 'Bill' necessarily involved deceit or misrepresentation. In reasoning that it is unethical for an attorney or investigator to record conversations without the consent of the other party, the district court relied on cases from other jurisdictions and on the ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility's Formal Opinion 337 (1974) ('No lawyer should record any conversation whether by tapes or other electronic device, without the consent or prior knowledge of all parties to the conversation.'). "After the district court issued its opinion, the ABA published a new Formal Opinion which reverses its position in Formal Opinion 337 and states that a lawyer who electronically records a conversation without the knowledge of the other party or parties to the conversation does not necessarily violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. See ABA Comm. on Ethics and Prof'l Responsibility, Formal Op. 422 (2001). The ABA advised that '[a] lawyer may not, however, record conversations in violation of the law in a jurisdiction that forbids such conduct without the consent of the parties, nor falsely represent that a conversation is not being recorded.' Id. The laws of South Dakota permit recording by one party to a conversation without the knowledge or consent of the other party. South Dakota v. Braddock, 452 N.W.2d 785, 788 (1990). "Nevertheless, conduct that is legal may not be ethical. The ABA suggests that nonconsensual recordings be prohibited 'where [the recording] is accompanied by other circumstances that make it unethical.' ABA Comm. on Ethic and Prof'l Responsibility, Formal Op. 01-422. Mohr's unethical contact with Becker and 'Bill' combined with the nonconsensual recording presents the type of situation where even the new Formal Opinion would authorize sanctions. "The duty to refrain from conduct that involves deceit or misrepresentation should preclude any attorney from participating in the type of surreptitious conduct that occurred here. As Mohr's deposition testimony makes clear, his covert recordings were conducted with Arctic Cat's attorneys' knowledge and approval. In addition, there is evidence in the record that the course of conduct by Mohr was not only ratified by Arctic Cat's counsel, but that it was directed by them. Arctic Cat's attorneys admit that the intent behind Mohr's retention was to determine whether Elliott was continuing to sell and service Arctic Cat snowmobiles in order to rebut Elliott's damages expert at trial." Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.4 Misconduct "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: "(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; "(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; "(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; ... " Comment * * * "[6] The lawful secret or surreptitious recording of a conversation or the actions of another for the purpose of obtaining or preserving evidence does not, by itself, constitute conduct involving deceit or dishonesty. See RPC 4.4." Tennessee Board Professional Responsibility Formal Ethics Opinion No. 86-F-14(a) (1986): "Request has been made for reconsideration and clarification of Formal Ethics Opinion 81-F-14 concerning recording of conversations by criminal defense attorneys without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation. Formal Ethics Opinion 81-F-14 adopted ABA Formal Opinion 337 ruling that secret recording of conversations by an attorney constitutes conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility ... There is no ethical impropriety in secretly recording potentially adverse witnesses in criminal cases for the purpose of providing a means of impeachment in a criminal trial, provided one party to the communication has consented and provided such recording does not violate any law. Further, any lawyer may record an utterance which is itself a felonious crime, including bribe offers and attempted extortions, provided one party to the communication has consented and provided such recording does not violate any law." Cleckner v. Dale, 719 S.W.2d 535, 537 n.l (Tenn.App. 1986): "Dale recorded this telephone conversation without Cleckner's knowledge or consent. The practice of tape recording any private conversation without the consent or prior knowledge of all parties to the conversation is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, See A.B.A. Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op. 337 (1974)) and Tenn. Bd. of Professional Responsibility, Formal Op. 81- F-14 (1981). An attorney's use against a client of a clandestine recording of a conversation with the client is also a violation of Tenn. S. Ct. Rule 8, EC 4-5." Supreme Court of Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion No. 575 (2006): "The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit a Texas lawyer from making an undisclosed recording of the lawyer's telephone conversations provided that (1) recordings of conversations involving a client are made to further a legitimate purpose of the lawyer or the client, (2) confidential client information contained in an recording is appropriately protected by the lawyer in accordance with Rule 1.05, (3) the undisclosed recording does not constitute a serious criminal violation under the laws of any jurisdiction applicable to the telephone conversation recorded, and (4) the recording is not contrary to a representation made by the lawyer to any person. Opinions 392 and 514 are overruled." Utah State Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 02-05 (2002) : "What are the ethical considerations for a government lawyer who participates in a lawful covert governmental operation, such as a law enforcement investigation of suspected illegal activity or an intelligence gathering activity, when the covert operation entails conduct employing dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation or deceit? ... We conclude that the mere act of secretly but lawfully recording a conversation inherently is not deceitful, and leave for another day the separate question of when investigative practices involving misrepresentation of identity and purpose nonetheless may be ethical. Utah State Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 96-04 (1996) : "Recording conversations to which an attorney is a party without prior disclosure to the other parties is not unethical when the act, considered within the context of the circumstances, does not involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation ... The act of taking notes during a conversation or dictating a memo to the file regarding a conversation should to be considered differently from actually recording it within the limitations discussed in this Opinion. One basis for allowing attorneys to record conversations is founded in the same reasoning stated in [United States v.] White, [401 U.S. 745, 753 (1971)] 'An electronic recording will many times produce a more reliable rendition of what a defendant has said than will the unaided memory of a police agent.' An attorney's ability to recall information from conversations is important to his competence in undertaking an action.... [A] number of issues that have arisen in other jurisdictions illustrate circumstances where the act of undisclosed recording of a conversation by an attorney would violate an ethical rule. For example, it would be unethical for an attorney to fail to answer candidly if asked whether the conversation is being recorded.... A lawyer's failure to identify himself, the client, or the purpose of the conversation could also constitute unethical misrepresentation." In re PRB , 187 Vt. 35, 43, 989 A.2d 523, 528 (2009): Criminal defense attorneys interviewed and recorded the conversation of a potential witness. During the course of the telephone interview, the attorneys denied that the conversation was being recorded. The Vermont Supreme Court held that conduct violated Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct which prohibits attorneys from making false statements of material fact in the representation of a client. The Court concluded, however, that under the circumstances the attorneys did not violate Rule 8.4(c) which prohibits dishonest, fraudulent, and deceitful conduct, since it read the Rule to reach only such conduct that is "so egregious that it indicates that the lawyer charged lacks the moral character to practice law." Virginia State Bar Association Legal Ethics Opinion 1814 (2011): "In LEO 1765, the Committee extended LEO 1738's list of exceptions to include lawful use of non-consensual recording performed by federal lawyers as part of the federal government's intelligence work.... The Committee opines that when a Criminal Defense Lawyer or an agent acting under their supervision uses lawful methods, such as undisclosed tape-recording, as part of his/her interviewing witnesses or preparing his/her case, those methods cannot be seen as reflecting adversely on his/her fitness to practice law; therefore, such conduct will not violate the prohibition in Rule 8.4(c). "The committee further opines that when a Criminal Defense Lawyer or an agent acting under his/her supervision uses lawful methods, such as undisclosed tape-recording, as part of his/her interviewing witnesses or preparing his/her case, the lawyer or his/her agent must assure that the unrepresented third party is aware of the lawyer or agent's role." Virginia State Bar Association Legal Ethics Opinion 18 02 (2010): "In both of the above examples [clients seek advice on the secret use of records to gather evidence relating to sex abuse and hostile work environment], the Committee faces situations in which the client has asked the lawyer for his or her opinion on how to address the client's legal problem. The proposed undisclosed recording is not only lawful, but could very well be the only means by which the client may obtain relevant information. Nothing that the lawyer has suggested or recommended to the client violates the legal rights of the person whose statements are to be recorded.... The Committee believes that the circumstances presented in both examples are easily distinguishable from and stand in stark contrast to the illegal wiretapping case presented in Gunter. Both examples are situations that require the lawyer to weigh the competing ethical obligations of a lawyer's duties to third parties against those owed to the client. Virginia State Bar Association Legal Ethics Opinion 1738 (2000): "[T]he ethics opinions issued by this committee to date do not recognize any circumstances that would allow an attorney to secretly tape record his or her conversations with another or direct another to do so. The committee concludes that its prior opinions sweep too broadly and therefore they are overruled to the extent they are inconsistent with this opinion.... [T]he committee is of the opinion that Rule 8.4 does not prohibit a lawyer engaged in a criminal investigation or a housing discrimination investigation from making otherwise lawful misrepresentations necessary to conduct such investigations. The committee is further of the opinion that it is not improper for a lawyer engaged in such an investigation to participate in, or to advise another person to participate in, a communication with a third party which is electronically recorded with the full knowledge and consent of one party to the conversation, but without the knowledge or consent of the other party, as long as the recording is otherwise lawful. Finally, the committee opines that it is not improper for a lawyer to record a conversation involving threatened or actual criminal activity when the lawyer is a victim of such threat. "The Committee recognizes that there may be other factual situations in which the lawful recording of a telephone conversation by a lawyer, or his or her agent might be ethical. However, the committee expressly declines to extend this opinion beyond the facts cited therein and will reserve a decision on any similar conduct until an appropriate inquiry is made." LEO 1738 was written in the shadow of Gunter v. Virginia State Bar, 238 Va. 617, 385 S.E.2d 597 (1989). Gunter , noting ABA Formal Opinion 337, held "that 'recordation, by a lawyer or by his authorization, of conversations between third persons, to which he is not a party , without the consent or prior knowledge of each party to the conversation, is conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, [or] deceit under DR 1-102(A)(4).' Gunter v. Virginia State Bar did not address whether it is unethical for an attorney to tape record a telephone conversation in which the attorney is a participant , if the other party to that conversation is unaware that it is being recorded," LEO 1738, at 2-3 (emphasis in the original). LEO 1738 also described its earlier opinions, "overruled to the extent they are inconsistent" with LEO 1738, id . at 3. LEO 1217 (1989), involving attorney's surreptitious recording of a conversation of opposing counsel, "concluded that even though such a recording may be permissible under Virginia or federal law, it may nevertheless be improper under DR1-102(A)(4) if there are additional facts which would make such recording dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful or a misrepresentation," LEO 1738 at 2. Two subsequent opinions, LEO 1324 (1990) and LEO 1448, "concluded that even if non-consensual tape recordings are not illegal, a lawyer may not participate in such activity nor advise a client to do so," LEO 1738 at 2. "Finally, the committee applied the holding LEO 1324 and LEO 1448 to prohibit an attorney acting only as an officer or agent of a corporation [rather than as an attorney] from tape recording a conversation between the attorney and a former employee of corporation with[out] the employee's knowledge or consent. Legal Ethics Opinion 1635 (1995)," LEO 1738 at 2. Recording telephone conversations is a crime under Washington law, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§9.73.030, 9.73.080. There are law enforcement exceptions, but there is no general one party consent exemption, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §9.73.030. The Washington Rules of Professional Conduct declare that a lawyer "shall not ... commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects," Wash. R. Prof. Cond. 8.4(b). Wis consin State Bar Professional Ethics Committee Formal Opinion E-94-5 (1994): "The State Bar of Wisconsin Professional Ethics Committee believes that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not support a blanket interpretation that generally either permits or prohibits secret recording by lawyers of telephone conversations. Whether the secret recording of a telephone conversation by a lawyer involves 'dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation' under SCR 20:8.4(c) depends upon all the circumstances operating at the time. This determination is highly fact intensive and numerous factors are involved, including the prior relationship of the parties, statements made during the conversation, whether threatening or harassing prior calls have been made and the intended purpose of the recording. In this latter connection, it should be noted that section 968.31(2)(2) of the Wisconsin Statutes implicitly prohibits secret recordings 'for the purposes of committing any criminal or tortious act ...or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.' The secret recording of telephone conversations also may violate the Attorney's Oath, which requires lawyers to 'abstain from all offensive personality.' SCR 20:8.4(g) and 40.15; Disc.Proc. Against Beaver, 181 Wis. 2d 12, 510 N.W.2d 129 (1994). "Different standards apply when the other party involved is a client. The fiduciary duties owed by a lawyer to a client and the duty of communication under SCR 20:1.4 dictate that statements made by clients over the telephone not be recorded without advising the client and receiving consent to the recording after consultation. Similarly, the secret recording of telephone conversations with judges and their staffs is generally impermissible. Courts are responsible for determining when and how a record should be made of activities in the court. Moreover, the Attorney's Oath requires lawyers to 'maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers.' SCR 20:8.4(g). "Even in circumstances in which secret recording of telephone calls is permissible, lawyers should be very cautious in deciding whether to do so. In some circumstances, a recording of a telephone conversation may constitute material having potential evidentiary value that the attorney has an obligation to turn over to a prosecutor or opponent in litigation under SCR 20:3.4. In addition, the secret recording of telephone calls is offensive to many persons and may harm the attorney's reputation when such conduct is discovered.... "Routinely recording of all calls would almost certainly violate the Rules of Professional Conduct." | In some jurisdictions, it is unethical for an attorney to secretly record a conversation even though it is not illegal to do so. A few states require the consent of all parties to a conversation before it may be recorded. Recording without mutual consent is both illegal and unethical in those jurisdictions. Elsewhere the matter is more uncertain. In 1974, the American Bar Association (ABA) opined that surreptitiously recording a conversation without the knowledge or consent of all of the participants violated the ethical prohibition against engaging in conduct involving "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." The ABA conceded, however, that law enforcement recording, conducted under judicial supervision, might breach no ethical standard. Reaction among the authorities responsible for regulation of the practice of law in the various states was mixed. In 2001, the ABA reversed its earlier opinion and announced that it no longer considered one-party consent recording per se unethical when it is otherwise lawful. Today, this is the view of a majority of the jurisdictions on record. A substantial number, however, disagree. An even greater number have yet announce to an opinion. A sampling of the views of various bar associations in the question is attached. An earlier version of this report once appeared under the same title as CRS Report 98-250. An abridged version of this report is available without footnotes or attachment as CRS Report R42649, Wiretapping, Tape Recorders, and Legal Ethics: An Abridged Overview of Questions Posed by Attorney Involvement in Secretly Recording Conversation. |
During the energy boom of the early 1980s, BLM found that it could not handle the case processing workload associated with a growing number of applications for oil and gas leases. The bureau recognized that to keep up with increased demand, it needed to automate its manual records and case processing activities. Therefore, in the mid-1980s, it began planning to acquire an automated land and mineral case processing system. At that time, BLM estimated that the life-cycle cost of such a system would be about $240 million. In 1988 BLM expanded the scope of the system to include a land information system (LIS). The expanded system was to provide automated information systems and geographic information systems technology capabilities to support other land management functions, such as land use and resource planning. BLM combined the LIS with a project to modernize the bureau's computer and telecommunications equipment, and estimated the total life-cycle cost of this combined project to be $880 million. The project was reduced in scope in 1989 to respond to concern about the high cost and named the ALMRS/Modernization. The project consisted of three major components—the ALMRS IOC, a geographic coordinate database, and the modernization of BLM's computer and telecommunications infrastructure and rehost of selected management and administrative systems. Estimated life-cycle costs were $575 million (later reduced to $403 million), and BLM planned to complete the entire project by the end of fiscal year 1996. The ALMRS IOC was to be the flagship of the ALMRS/Modernization, and was to replace various manual and ad hoc automated systems. The bureau designated the ALMRS IOC a critical system for (1) automating land and mineral records, (2) supporting case processing activities, including leasing oil and gas reserves and recording valid mining claims, and (3) providing information for land and resource management activities, including timber sales and grazing leases. The system was expected to more efficiently record, maintain, and retrieve land description, ownership, and use information to support BLM, other federal programs, and interested parties. It was to do this by using the new computer and telecommunications equipment that was deployed throughout the bureau, integrating multiple databases into a single geographically referenced database, shortening the time to complete case processing activities, and automating costly manual records. Despite the promise of ALMRS IOC to significantly improve business operations, repeated problems with its development have prevented deployment. For example, during a user evaluation test in May 1996, problems were reported involving unacceptably slow system performance. Subsequent testing in 1996 uncovered 204 high-priority software problems, which delayed project completion by about a year. In testing conducted in November 1997, BLM encountered workstation failures and slowdowns caused by insufficient workstation memory and by problems discovered in two BLM-developed software applications. Some of these problems had been identified in earlier tests but had not been corrected. Additional testing uncovered software errors that resulted in missing, incorrect, and incomplete data, and error files that contained accurate data. As a result of these problems, BLM postponed the Operational Assessment Test and Evaluation (OAT&E) that had been scheduled for December 1997. The OAT&E was to determine whether ALMRS IOC was ready to be deployed to the first state office. In October 1998, the OAT&E was conducted and showed that ALMRS IOC was not ready to be deployed because it did not meet requirements. During the test, users reported several problems, including that ALMRS IOC (1) did not support BLM’s business activities, (2) was too complex, and (3) significantly impeded worker productivity. For example, one tester reported that entering data for a $10 sale of a commodity, such as gravel, required an hour of data entry using ALMRS IOC, whereas with the existing system, the same transaction would have taken about 10 minutes. Users also reported that system response time problems were severe or catastrophic at all test sites. One user said “It is ridiculous to spend 2 or 3 hours to enter information in this system, when it takes 30 minutes to an hour to process the information into the legacy system.” Finally, users reported data converted from legacy databases were not accurate, and that validation of the converted legacy data required inordinate effort and time. Because these problems are significant, senior BLM officials have decided that ALMRS IOC is not currently deployable. According to BLM, it obligated about $411 million on the ALMRS/Modernization project between fiscal years 1983 and 1998, of which more than $67 million was spent to develop ALMRS IOC software. The $67 million does not include ALMRS IOC costs that are part of other cost categories, such as costs for work performed from fiscal years 1983 through 1988, project management, computer and telecommunications hardware and software, data management, and systems operation and maintenance. The reported obligations associated with the major cost categories of the ALMRS/ Modernization are summarized in table 1. Senior BLM officials told us that although ALMRS IOC is not currently deployable, BLM has benefited from the ALMRS/Modernization work. BLM has deployed about 6,000 workstations throughout the bureau, provided office automation capabilities, and implemented a national telecommunications network with electronic mail and internet access, which has enhanced communications and enabled BLM to communicate with other federal agencies. BLM’s view of the benefits received, however, does not reflect the fact that it has not realized the significant business- related benefits and improvements ALMRS IOC was to provide. Mr. Chairman, since May 1995 we have reported many problems and risks that threatened the successful development and deployment of the ALMRS/ Modernization. Our reports have discussed these issues, their causes, and our recommended corrective actions. BLM has been slow to implement some of our recommendations and has not yet fully implemented others. Following is a summary of the problems, causes, and associated recommendations we have reported. BLM did not develop a system architecture or formulate a concept of operations before designing and developing the ALMRS/Modernization. A system architecture describes the components of a system, their interrelationships, and principles and guidelines governing their design and evolution. A concept of operations describes how an organization would use planned information technology to perform its business operations and accomplish its missions. Designing and developing the project without a system architecture and concept of operations unnecessarily increased the risk that the ALMRS/Modernization would not meet the business and information needs of the bureau. BLM has never had a credible project schedule, reliable milestones, or a critical path to manage the development and deployment of the ALMRS/ Modernization. As a result, BLM has not known with any certainty how long it would take and, therefore, how much it would cost to complete the ALMRS/Modernization. Because BLM has not implemented our recommendation to establish a credible project schedule, the ALMRS/ Modernization has been driven by self-imposed deadlines. In trying to meet those deadlines, BLM has deferred some tasks until after completion of the project, and has not corrected all problems when it found them because doing so would cause it to miss the self-imposed project deadlines. BLM faced serious risks because it had not established a robust configuration management program for the ALMRS/Modernization. Configuration management is essential to controlling the composition of and changes to computer and network systems components and documentation. The lack of configuration management increased the risks that system modifications could lead to undesirable consequences, such as causing system failures, endangering system integrity, increasing security risks, and degrading system performance. In response to our recommendation, BLM later developed a configuration management plan and related policies and procedures for the ALMRS/ Modernization. We planned to review field office implementation of the configuration management program after completion of the ALMRS IOC; however, we have not done so because the system was not deployed. BLM incurred serious risks because it had not established a security plan or security architecture for the ALMRS/Modernization. The lack of such security controls increased risks to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of stored and processed data. BLM recently completed work in response to our recommendation. It performed a risk analysis, developed a system security plan and architecture, identified management and operational controls, and developed disaster and recovery plan procedures. As with configuration management, we planned to review field office implementation of the security program after completion of the ALMRS IOC, but have not done so because the system was not deployed. BLM invited serious risks because it had not established transition plans to guide the incorporation of ALMRS IOC into its daily operations. Deploying a major information system that people will use to do their jobs requires careful planning to avoid business and operational problems. Without transition plans, BLM increased the risk that using ALMRS IOC would disrupt, rather than facilitate, its work processes and ability to conduct land and mineral management business. In response to our recommendation, BLM developed transition plans; however, the plans were not adequate. They did not outline needed changes in organizational roles, responsibilities, and interrelationships, or address issues such as how state and subordinate offices would deal with oil and gas, mining, and solid mineral business process changes that would result from implementing ALMRS IOC. BLM faced serious risks because it had not established operations and maintenance plans. The lack of plans increased the risk that the bureau would not meet its automation objectives or the daily needs of its offices. BLM developed operations and maintenance plans in response to our recommendation. We expected to review field office implementation of the operations and maintenance plans after completion of the ALMRS IOC; however, we have not done so because the system was not deployed. BLM invited serious risks because it planned to stress test only the ALMRS IOC component—state and district offices, ALMRS IOC servers, terminals, and workstations. This increased the risk that BLM would deploy the ALMRS IOC nationwide without knowing whether the ALMRS/Modernization—ALMRS IOC, office automation, e-mail, administrative systems, and various departmental, state, and district software applications in a networked environment—would perform as intended during peak workloads. BLM agreed to fully stress test the entire ALMRS/Modernization before deploying the ALMRS IOC component throughout the bureau. BLM did not develop a Year 2000 contingency plan to ensure that critical legacy systems could operate after January 1, 2000, if the ALMRS IOC could not be delivered in 1999. We recommended that BLM develop a Year 2000 contingency plan to ensure continued use of those critical legacy systems ALMRS IOC was to replace. BLM implemented this recommendation and began executing the plan in 1998, when it became clear that ALMRS IOC would not be fully implemented by the end of 1999. At this point, BLM has made an enormous investment in software that does not meet its business needs. At the same time, it has not adopted information technology management practices required by recent legislation or suggested by industry best practices. Because of its large investment, BLM should analyze ALMRS IOC to determine whether the software can be cost-beneficially modified to meet the bureau’s needs. In addition, to reduce the risk that future information technology efforts will result in a similar outcome, BLM should assess its investment management practices and its systems acquisition capabilities. Until these assessments and subsequent improvement actions are taken, BLM will not be adequately prepared to undertake any sizable system acquisition. We believe that since BLM has invested over $67 million to develop the ALMRS IOC software, the bureau should thoroughly analyze the software to determine whether it can be modified to meet users’ needs and at what cost. This analysis should be part of an overall effort to identify and assess all viable alternatives, including (1) using or modifying ALMRS IOC software, (2) modifying or evolving existing land and recordation systems, (3) acquiring commercial, off-the-shelf software, or (4) developing new systems. The alternative analysis should clearly identify the risks, costs, and benefits of each alternative, and should be performed only after BLM is assured that it has fully verified its current business requirements. In this regard, senior BLM officials said they are performing an analysis to determine where ALMRS IOC failed to meet users’ expectations and critical business requirements. According to the acting land and resources information systems program manager, BLM is beginning to develop plans for future information technology modernization. These plans are to identify alternatives to deploying ALMRS IOC, and evaluate those alternatives based on cost, functionality, and return on investment. BLM also plans to document its current and planned business processes and systems architectures as part of this effort. While such planning is necessary, BLM also needs to assess its investment management practices to help avoid future problems. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 seeks to maximize the return on investments in information systems by requiring agencies to institute sound capital investment decision-making. Under the act, agencies must design and implement a process for maximizing the value and assessing and managing the risks of information technology acquisitions. An information technology investment process is an integrated approach that provides for data-driven selection, control, and evaluation of information technology investments. The investment process is comprised of three phases. The first phase involves selecting investments using quantitative and qualitative criteria for comparing and setting priorities for information technology projects. The second phase includes monitoring and controlling selected projects through progress reviews at key milestones to compare the expected costs, risks encountered, and performance benefits realized to date. These progress reviews are essential for senior managers to decide whether to continue, accelerate, modify, or terminate a selected project. The third phase involves a postimplementation review or evaluation of fully implemented projects to compare actuals against estimates, assess performance, and identify areas where future decision-making can be improved. According to senior BLM officials, the bureau has established an Information Technology Investment Board to provide support for its capital planning processes. It intends to apply more rigorous, structured processes to analyze its information technology investments and select, control, and evaluate information technology investment alternatives. Until such processes are fully in place, the bureau cannot be assured that future investments will be properly selected, managed, and evaluated using sound investment criteria to provide effective support for the bureau’s mission and goals. Further, to ensure that information technology investment processes are carried out adequately, the Clinger-Cohen Act also requires agencies to assess the knowledge and skills of its executive and management staff to meet agencies’ information resources management requirements, and to take steps to rectify any deficiencies. The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) has identified the need for organizations to focus on information resources management capabilities. Organizations should improve their capabilities using a process to characterize the maturity of their workforce practices, guide a program of workforce development, set priorities for immediate actions, and establish a culture of software engineering excellence. According to senior BLM officials, the bureau examined the kind of skills that its field office computer specialists had, and identified the skills they would need. However, the officials recognize that this was not the same as the more comprehensive assessment suggested by SEI. Such assessments are needed to better identify and manage information technology investments. Consequently, the bureau should evaluate and, where needed, enhance the knowledge and skills of its staff to help ensure that the investment management processes it puts in place can be effectively carried out by its information resources management organization. Finally, the Clinger-Cohen Act requires agencies to develop, maintain, and facilitate the implementation of a sound and integrated information technology architecture. An information technology architecture provides a comprehensive blueprint that systematically details the breadth and depth of an organization’s mission-based mode of operation. An architecture provides details first in logical terms, such as defining business functions, providing high-level descriptions of information systems and their interrelationships, and specifying information flows; and second in technical terms, such as specifying hardware, software, data, communications, security, and performance characteristics. By enforcing an information technology architecture to guide and constrain a modernization program, an agency can preclude inconsistent systems design and development decisions, and the resulting suboptimal performance and excess cost. As I discussed earlier, BLM did not develop a system architecture before designing and developing the ALMRS/Modernization. This is a key reason why ALMRS IOC did not meet the bureau’s business needs. BLM still has not developed an architecture that documents its business processes and the technology and systems that support them. BLM needs to develop an information technology architecture to guide its future investment plans. Research by SEI has shown that defined and repeatable processes for managing software acquisition are critical to an organization’s ability to consistently deliver high-quality information systems on time and within budget. These critical management processes include project planning, requirements management, software project tracking and oversight, software quality assurance, software configuration management, and change control management. To assist organizations in evaluating and enhancing systems acquisition capabilities and processes, SEI has developed models for conducting software process assessments and software capability evaluations to determine the state of their capabilities and identify areas requiring improvement. BLM also needs an independent assessment of its systems acquisition capabilities, and must ensure that it uses sound systems acquisition processes. As I discussed earlier, BLM did not develop several key management controls for the ALMRS/Modernization. BLM did not develop a credible project schedule or develop adequate transition plans. In addition, the lack of a configuration management program, security plan and architecture, and operations and maintenance plans further increased BLM’s risks. These problems indicate the need for BLM to ensure that the deficiencies in its systems acquisition capabilities and processes are acknowledged and corrected. Until such assessments are completed and corrective action taken, BLM should not undertake any sizable systems acquisition or development efforts. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may have at this time. 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 Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Automated Land and Mineral Record System project, also known as the ALMRS/Modernization, focusing on: (1) the history of the project; (2) the results of GAO's reviews, including the key reasons for problems; and (3) where GAO believes BLM should go from here. GAO noted that: (1) BLM spent over 15 years and estimates that it invested about $411 million planning and developing the ALMRS/Modernization, only to have the major software component--known as the ALMRS Initial Operating Capacity (IOC)--fail; (2) as a result of that failure, the bureau decided not to deploy ALMRS IOC at this time; (3) GAO has previously reported on the significant problems and risks that BLM has encountered; (4) GAO has made many recommendations to reduce those risks; however, BLM has been slow to implement some recommendations and has not yet fully implemented others; (5) BLM now needs to determine whether it can salvage any of the more than $67-million reported investment in ALMRS IOC software, by analyzing the software to determine if it can be cost-beneficially modified to meet BLM's needs; and (6) in addition, to reduce the risk that future efforts will result in similar failures, BLM should assess its information technology investment practices and systems acquisition capabilities. |
Gov. Bob McDonnell, R-Va., has a resume that should put him in good company with other 2016 Republican presidential contenders: Swing-state governor, retired military officer, and national recognition in Republican circles from his time chairing the Republican Governors' Association. But he's now embroiled in a controversy that has the potential to derail any future ambitions for higher office.
The Washington Post reported this week that a Virginia businessman gave $145,000 to McDonnell and members of his family in the form of loans, donations, and gifts between 2011 and 2012. It's the latest development in the scandal involving the McDonnells' relationship to Jonnie R. Williams, Sr., the head of the nutritional supplement company Star Scientific. The McDonnells have helped promote the company, including hosting an event at the Executive Mansion in Richmond to launch a new product.
McDonnell: No "special treatment" to Williams or other donors
In a few public statements on the matter, McDonnell has said he disclosed all donations as required by Virginia law and that Star Scientific did not receive special treatment. Aides to the governor point out that under Virginia law, elected officials do not need to disclose loans given to businesses or gifts to family members.
"Star Scientific and Jonnie Williams have not received any board appointments, economic development grants, targeted tax incentives or government contracts during this administration," McDonnell press secretary Taylor Thornley Keeney said in a written statement. "The governor has been diligent over the years in making his financial disclosures."
That hasn't stopped the Post editors from excoriating McDonnell, calling his personal life an example of "profligacy, irresponsibility and entitlement" in a blistering editorial. Two Democratic state legislators have called on McDonnell to resign. And the scandal is threatening to embroil the Republicans' gubernatorial nominee, Ken Cuccinelli, who also has a relationship with Williams.
"What we've all been seeing is very painful for Virginia, and it's completely inconsistent with Virginia's very reserved traditions," Cuccinelli said in a statement that seemed to distance himself from McDonnell. "All of this emphasizes the need for clearer and faster disclosures that cover the whole family, as well as a cap on the size and types of gifts."
During the 2012 campaign, McDonnell was mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate or future cabinet secretary for Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Virginia governors are limited to one term, so McDonnell will leave office in January 2014 with two years to plot his political future. He does have accomplishments from his time in office, including a steadily falling unemployment rate that stood at 5.3 percent in May and a a large transportation overhaul enacted this spring. But the Star Scientific scandal could dog him.
"It'll be a question or questions that he would have to answer down the road," says one prominent Republican strategist. "But depending on how it plays, it doesn't mean it's disqualifying in the future. He's been a great governor, he's a very attractive candidate, he's articulate. Depending on how this plays out, people could be in a very forgiving mood."
How the controversy plays out will also depend on both the FBI and Virginia state prosecutors. Both are reportedly investigating whether any of Williams' payments to the McDonnells were illegal.
"It's done," another Washington-based Republican said about McDonnell's 2016 changes. "That conversation doesn't even exist. The conversation now is if there is going to be a resignation."
That's an ignominious position to be in for someone once seen as a rising star in the Republican Party.
Here's what else the potential 2016 candidates have been up to this week, courtesy of CBS News' Jaclyn Peiser:
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.: The Washington Free Beacon reported on Tuesday that a co-author of Paul's book "The Tea Party Goes to Washington" and close aide to the senator had previously expressed admiration for the Confederacy. Paul hired Jack Hunter to assist on his book in 2010 and then later made Hunter his social media director. Hunter had a radio program, "The Southern Avenger," in which he openly discussed racial pride, pro-secession ideals, and praised John Wilkes Booth for assassinating President Abraham Lincoln. Paul responded in an interview with the Huffington Post on Thursday saying that he doesn't agree with all of Hunter's past statements but he still stood by his aide saying that Hunter "is incredibly talented."
Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J.: Democratic gubernatorial candidate Barbara Buono released an online attack ad on Tuesday accusing Christie of focusing too much on the 2016 campaign rather than on the issues facing New Jersey. The Democratic candidate even made a jab at Christie's trips to Iowa, saying, "There's no fried butter in Newark, just 13 percent unemployment."
Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis.: A Wisconsin federal judge this week blocked a law that increases restrictions on doctors performing abortions. Walker signed the bill last Friday and it took effect on Monday. The judge ruled that banning doctors who don't have admitting privileges to local hospitals from performing abortions is unconstitutional and violates due process.
Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas: Rick Perry announced on Monday that he will not seek a fourth term as governor of Texas. Perry held a private gathering for close friends and supporters in San Antonio to announce his political future. Although he did not officially declare that he will attempt another run for president in 2016, he said in a Fox News interview that it is "certainly" an option.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.: Santorum went to Austin on Thursday to show his support for the Texas abortion bill. The former senator held a press conference with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, R-Texas, state Sen. Ken Paxton, R-Texas, and other conservative activists to praise Texas lawmakers for "standing up for life."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Hillary Clinton received a library of her own in Little Rock on Monday. The former first lady of Arkansas celebrated the event by reading "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" in her newly dedicated Hillary Rodham Clinton Children's Library and Learning Center. That evening Clinton helped honor Oscar de la Renta at the William J. Clinton Presidential Center where one of her infamous pantsuits and many other de la Renta pieces are on display.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y.: At an event in Buffalo on Tuesday, Cuomo told the press that despite his continued efforts, he is not optimistic about receiving federal funds to help with the flooding in upstate New York. And when asked about his opinion on both disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner and disgraced Gov. Eliot Spitzer running for office in New York City, Cuomo responded, "I am just watching the theater that is going on in New York City in this political season."
Biden: Fallen Arizona Hotshots heroes "long before we knew their names"
Vice President Joe Biden: The vice president gave a eulogy on Tuesday at the funeral for the 19 firefighters who died in the Arizona wildfire last month. Biden noted that the Granite Mountain Hotshots were "an elite unit in every sense of that phrase" and "they saw their jobs not as jobs, but as a duty, a duty to their fellow citizens." Biden was joined by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Gov. Jan Brewer, R-Ariz.
Gov. Martin O'Malley, D-Md.: The Maryland governor attended a fundraiser on Wednesday for Virginia Democrat and gubernatorial hopeful Terry McAuliffe. O'Malley, accompanied by Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, headlined the event in Annapolis at the home of former ambassador to Sweden Thomas L. Siebert. ||||| In 2010, the political world pegged Bob McDonnell as a president in the making. Last year, they put him on every VP list. As recently as May, they called the popular Virginia governor a political model for his would-be successors in Richmond, Democrat and Republican alike.
And now – well, now nobody’s sure what to call Bob McDonnell.
Text Size -
+
reset McDonnell refutes allegations Virginia's dirty politics
Suddenly under legal and political siege, McDonnell is the subject of one of the swiftest downfalls in recent memory: once known as a spotlessly clean, law-and-order politician, the governor stands accused of questionable financial dealings that range from the tacky to the jaw-dropping.
(PHOTOS: Scandal pols: Where are they now?)
The McDonnell saga has gripped Richmond – and increasingly Washington – as a cascade of embarrassing disclosures have buffeted the governor and his wife, Maureen. A series of Washington Post stories have documented their cozy relationship with a donor, Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams, who gave financial gifts to the McDonnell family including a cumulative $120,000 in the form of a check to Maureen McDonnell and a cash infusion to a family company.
With a federal investigation well underway, downcast McDonnell allies say they see little hope that the governor’s reputation will recover, and some privately express doubt that he’ll be able to serve out his term. They describe a pervasive mood of shock and gloom throughout the governor’s extended political family.
McDonnell himself is said to be frustrated and distraught, in a state of disbelief but not denial about the gravity of his predicament. His friends say that McDonnell firmly believes that he has done nothing illegal, and he told the Richmond station WTVR that in his 37 years of adult life, “No one’s raised questions about my integrity or my character.”
(Also on POLITICO: Va. poll: No on McDonnell 2016)
The question everyone’s raising now is: How on earth did McDonnell let this happen? How did a famously disciplined politician set himself up for this operatic dive from the peak of American political life?
The most popular theory at the moment is that the governor, having overextended himself in the housing market prior to the 2008 crash, averted his gaze when Williams started propping up his family. McDonnell wouldn’t be the first politician to try and sustain a lifestyle beyond his means, and then sink into deeper trouble by getting bailed out.
In that view, the Virginia tale is a case study in the personal disorientation that stems from ascending to great political heights – the inevitable blurring of lines between one’s donors and friends, and the loss of perspective that comes with winning an office of immense power and limited financial reward.
But the truth is that nobody outside McDonnell’s family, and perhaps no one aside from the governor himself, knows precisely what blind spot or lapse in judgment set him on the path to self-immolation.
(WATCH: Virginia Gov. McDonnell refutes scandal allegations)
“This is not the Bob I know,” said former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, who called the whole grim story wildly at odds with the larger arc of McDonnell’s career. “He is one of the most ethical guys I’ve ever worked with.”
Said Davis: “I’ve seen Bob in situations where a lot of other politicians would cross lines, and Bob has never gotten close to them. If what is reported is accurate, it is not in keeping with what I’ve seen in 20 years of knowing him.”
Democratic state Sen. Creigh Deeds, who ran unsuccessfully against McDonnell in statewide elections for both governor and attorney general, was just as incredulous.
“I’ve run two campaigns against the guy [and] I can tell you, I’m totally surprised. I’m just shocked,” Deeds said. “He had the world in his hands. He had everything in the palm of his hands and a very bright future. And now – now I don’t know.”
(Also on POLITICO: Glenn Thrush's politics week in review)
McDonnell allies continue to emphasize that much of what’s been reported may not run afoul of Virginia’s laws governing political gift-giving. There’s still no public evidence that Williams, for all his largesse, received anything from the government in return that would represent quid pro quo. ||||| There are two swift routes to political downfall. One is sex. The other is money. The first is humiliating but survivable. The second tends to be terminal, even criminal.
Today’s topic is the second, in the form of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) and the now mountainous evidence that — whether he technically complied with Virginia’s Swiss cheese disclosure laws or not in accepting thousands of dollars in gifts from a wealthy businessman — he has no business continuing in office.
Ruth Marcus is a columnist and editorial writer for The Post, specializing in American politics and domestic policy. View Archive
The sordid McDonnell details in a bit, but first the comparisons between politicians and illicit sex and politicians and illicit money. They are linked to the twin delusions of the erring politician: his (I use the male form intentionally) sense of entitlement and his conviction of invulnerability.
I work so hard, the politician tells himself. I deserve a little (insert specific failing).
No one will find out, the politician tells himself. I was smart enough to get elected (governor/president/senator).
1 of 102 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × Tom Toles goes local View Photos A collection of cartoons on D.C., Maryland and Virginia. Caption A collection of cartoons on D.C., Maryland and Virginia. Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
There are differences, as well, between the politician tripped up by sex and the one felled by greed. The former can argue that he was not thinking with . . . well, he was not thinking. He is hardly the first to do something dumb in the grip of lust, love, whatever.
Yet he most likely has a wife and family, collateral damage in his sexual escapades. Points off for that — and more off if he has his wife by his side at the confessional news conference.
The greedy pol is blameworthy in a different way, again both heightening and lessening his guilt. On the negative side, he was not swept away by the passion of the moment; he calculated that he could accept the money, the Rolex, whatever, and get away with it.
On the plus side — and this is explanation, not excuse — he may have been acting under familial pressure, and in what he conceived as the best interests of his family, rather than against it, as the straying spouse certainly has.
Much modern political corruption, especially of the penny-ante sort, can be explained by the yawning gap between the relatively paltry income of the politician and the wealth of the private-sector types fluttering around him.
The politician feels aggrieved, which in turn feeds his sense of entitlement. The political spouse sees her friends driving fancier cars, wearing fancier clothes — all this while her husband is probably working longer hours, to the detriment of his family. You can understand, although not excuse, the husband whose ethical judgment is warped by marital guilt, the wife whose judgment is warped by marital resentment.
Which brings us to the McDonnells, and the flagrant, repeated misconduct exposed by The Post’s Rosalind Helderman. The story began with relatively trivial, if astonishingly morally obtuse, bits of graft and back-scratching:
●The $15,000 check that businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr. gave to help cover the catering bill at the McDonnells’ daughter’s wedding — an event that took place three days after Virginia first lady Maureen McDonnell flew to Florida, where she touted a dietary supplement made by Williams’s company, Star Scientific Inc. Three months later, Star Scientific used the governor’s mansion for a luncheon, attended by the governor, to promote the supplement.
●The $6,500 Rolex, complete with engraved inscription, “71st Governor of Virginia,” that Williams bought for the governor at Maureen McDonnell’s behest. She allegedly requested the bauble moments before a meeting she had arranged for Williams to pitch a top state health official on the supplement.
● Maureen McDonnell’s reported $15,000 spree at Bergdorf Goodman, again on Williams’s tab — this a year after a staffer foiled McDonnell’s bid for a Williams-underwritten Oscar de la Renta inaugural gown.
Now comes reporting that raises the story to a new level of outrage: Williams last year gave $70,000 — supposedly a loan — to a corporation owned by McDonnell and his sister; plus $50,000 to Maureen McDonnell in 2011, and $10,000 as a wedding present this year to another McDonnell daughter.
As astonishing is the governor’s technocratic defense: that he is complying with the letter of Virginia disclosure rules, which do not require reporting of gifts to family members. “To, after the fact, impose some new requirements on an official,” McDonnell told a Norfolk radio show, “obviously wouldn’t be fair.”
But gifts and entanglements like these are simply wrong, a violation of the governor’s duty to citizens, whatever the rules. That McDonnell doesn’t get this basic point makes him unfit for office. Obviously.
Read more from Ruth Marcus’s archive, follow her on Twitter or subscribe to her updates on Facebook. ||||| Republican gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli is facing unwelcome spillover from the drip-drip of revelations about money and gifts flowing from a Virginia businessman to Gov. Bob McDonnell.
Jonnie Williams, who heads nutritional supplement manufacturer Star Scientific, has given $145,000 to the governor and his wife, including expensive clothing, a Rolex watch and checks to defray the costs of their daughters' weddings, according to the latest report in the Washington Post. The FBI is investigating.
Cuccinelli also has close ties to Williams, accepting vacations at his home and airplane flights and investing more than $10,000 in stock in his company. The attorney general tried to remedy the situation by amending his financial disclosures and recusing himself from the state's $1.7 million tax dispute with Star Scientific.
At the same time, Cuccinelli has kept an arm's length from the governor, breaking with him on a major transportation deal, campaigning without him at the state Republican convention and initiating the state probe into McDonnell's relationship with Williams. “What we’ve all been seeing has been very painful for Virginia, and it’s been completely inconsistent with Virginia’s very reserved traditions," Cuccinelli said in a statement clearly trying to distance himself from the scandal.
His campaign also sought to turn the tables on his Democratic opponent on Wednesday by alleging, "In the history of American politics, there has never been a gubernatorial candidate more embroiled in political scandal and questionable financial dealings than Terry McAuliffe." The anti-McAuliffe screed did not include anything new, rehashing accusations dating back to his fundraising for former President Clinton, and some Cuccinelli supporters remain worried about fallout from the rapidly unfolding scandal surrounding McDonnell.
"Right now it's a case of a terrible optics, and it's essentially handed a McAuliffe an arsenal of political ammunition," said Eric Odom, a prominent Virginia tea party activist. "He probably has ten campaign ads against Cuccinelli lined up and ready to go."
Indeed, McAuliffe's allies from the Democratic National Committee to ProgressVA to the Democratic Governors Association on Wednesday all circulated timelines of the relationship between Cuccinelli and Williams. "Cuccinelli has tried to deny his involvement in the scandal but he can't hide from the facts," declared the DNC.
At a campaign stop in Alexandria Wednesday afternoon, Cuccinelli wouldn't answer whether he thought McDonnell should step down. "The other discussion takes away from what Virginians care about: jobs," he said. Cuccinelli said that he's never offered Williams any favors – "only thing he's gotten from my office is opposition" – and called for increased disclosure and stricter caps on gift-giving to Virginia politicians.
"Right now there are two investigations running, one of which began with my referral, and we need to let those play out; however, all of this emphasizes the need for clearer and faster disclosures that cover the whole family, as well as a cap on the size and types of gifts," he said in a follow-up statement. "This situation also demonstrates why transparency is so important in our system. That’s why I’ve released eight years of my tax returns, and I will put them out each of the next four years while I am governor."
McAuliffe has called for a ban on gifts under $100. He has released three years of tax returns.
Odom urged Cuccinelli to be pro-active and lay out clear guidelines for legal, ethical behavior by elected officials. "He needs to go on the offensive, blaze his own path and show some leadership," he said. That could be sticky for Cuccinelli, since he simultaneously wears two hats as the state's top lawyer and the Republican nominee. Nearly every past attorney general who ran for governor stepped down from his state post.
Cuccinelli is also treading carefully to protect his conservative base while reaching out to the moderate Republicans and Democrats who helped elect McDonnell in 2009. The transportation deal is the line in the sand between these two constituencies, with tea party activists fuming over the subsequent tax hike and the political establishment and business community reveling over future road improvements.
"To be brutally honest, Bob McDonnell looks like a fourth-string quarterback fumbling the handoff to Cuccinelli, first with the tax increase and then these revelations" about his relationship with Williams, said Keith Appell, a conservative political consultant.
While Cuccinelli's opposition to the $600 million in transportation funding appeases the conservative wing of his party, it's widely viewed as potential impediment in a general election. At this point, however, the disagreement with the beleaguered gornor could be helpful for Cuccinelli's public image. Even before the transportation law passed, no one would have mistaken Cuccinelli -- who has crusaded against climate change science, gay marriage and abortion -- for a clone of the governor.
"He is definitely his own man with a very principled outlook on government and politics," said Morton Blackwell, the Republican national committeeman from Virginia. "Ken's position on the transportation deal was based on principle, not politics, but I suppose there are some good deeds that are rewarded."
The Republican National Committee rallied behind Cuccinelli on Wednesday, announcing that Chairman Reince Priebus would attend openings of campaign offices the next day in Hanover and North Chesterfield. Another prominent Virginia conservative, Richard Viguerie, said, "I haven't seen any evidence that McDonnell's problems have leaked over to the governor's race. It's not a help obviously, but every election is about the future, and I think that's going to be true of this race. The fact that the present governor messed up and made mistakes won't affect who people vote for."
Cuccinelli's campaign is eager to steer the debate to what it called McAuliffe's "well-established record of trading access for cash and questionable business deals." A memo on Wednesday from his top political adviser, Chris LaCivita, accused the former Democratic National Committee chairman of selling access to the White House and noted that he put up $1.35 million in collateral to finance Clinton's mortgage on a home in Westchester, N.Y. Cuccinelli's campiagn also mocked McAuliffe's unfulfilled promises to create thousands of jobs through an electric car company and renewable energy project.
"McAuliffe is going to have his own problems, so I think it will all be a wash if there's negative fallout from McDonnell on Ken Cuccinelli," said Jamie Radtke, founder of the Virginia Tea Party Federation. "Everything is predictive on Cuccinelli being able to get his message out."
Cameron Smith contributed to this report.
Correction: A previous version of this story misstated who is being investigated over a relationship with Jonnie Williams. It is Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. | Bob McDonnell's response to revelations that he and his family accepted $120,000 in cash from a major donor, the latest in a string of such reports, was "astonishing" writes Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post: McDonnell calmly asserted that he hadn't broken the letter of the law. Marcus doesn't care. "Whether he technically complied with Virginia's Swiss cheese disclosure laws or not," she writes, "he has no business continuing in office," and indeed, his very failure to grasp the wrongness of what he'd done makes it worse. The entire affair has quickly derailed the career of a guy who was recently on Mitt Romney's VP shortlist. "It's a colossal fall from grace," one Virginia Republican tells Politico. As for McDonnell's 2016 presidential hopes, "that conversation doesn't even exist" anymore, one Republican tells CBS. "The conversation now is if there is going to be a resignation." What's more, the scandal could ensnare McDonnell's would-be successor, Ken Cuccinelli, who is also close to the Star Scientific exec who's been so generous with McDonnell, the National Journal reports. |
A man checks on a boat storage facility that was damaged by Hurricane Harvey, Saturday, Aug. 26, 2017, in Rockport, Texas. (AP Photo/Eric Gay) (Associated Press)
HOUSTON (AP) — Rising floodwaters from the remnants of Hurricane Harvey chased thousands of people to rooftops or higher ground Sunday in Houston, overwhelming rescuers who fielded countless desperate calls for help.
A fleet of helicopters, airboats and high-water vehicles confronted flooding so widespread that authorities had trouble pinpointing the worst areas. Rescuers got too many calls to respond to each one and had to prioritize life-and-death situations.
The water rose high enough to begin filling second floors — a highly unusual sight for a city built on nearly flat terrain. Authorities urged people to get on top of their homes to avoid becoming trapped in attics and to wave sheets or towels to draw attention to their location.
Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez used Twitter to field calls for assistance. Among those seeking help was a woman who posted: "I have 2 children with me and the water is swallowing us up."
People used inflatable beach toys, rubber rafts and even air mattresses to get through the rising waters to safety. Others simply waded while carrying plastic trash bags stuffed with their belongings.
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said authorities had received more than 2,000 calls for help and would be opening the city's main convention center as a shelter. He urged drivers to stay off flooded roads to avoid adding to the number of stranded people.
"I don't need to tell anyone this is a very, very serious and unprecedented storm," Turner told a news conference. "We have several hundred structural flooding reports. We expect that number to rise pretty dramatically."
The mayor defended his decision not to ask residents to evacuate before the heavy rain from Harvey swamped roads and neighborhoods across the nation's fourth-largest city. He said there was no way to know which neighborhoods would be most vulnerable.
"If you think the situation right now is bad and you give an order to evacuate, you are creating a nightmare," he said, citing the risks of sending the city's 2.3 million inhabitants onto the highways at the same time.
Rainfall of more than 4 inches per hour resulted in water levels higher than in any recent floods and higher than during Tropical Storm Allison in June 2001, said Jeff Linder of flood control district in Harris County, which includes Houston.
Rescue came by land, water and air.
On Interstate 45 south of downtown, television video showed people climbing over concrete dividers to get to a high-wheel dump truck that appeared to be wheels-deep in water on a service road. They clambered up the side of the truck to get into the dump box.
In Friendswood near Houston, authorities asked people with flat-bottomed airboats or fuel for them to help rescue people, KPRC-TV in Houston reported Sunday morning.
The Coast Guard, which received more than 300 requests for help, deployed five helicopters and asked for additional aircraft from New Orleans.
Staff at a Houston television station broadcasting live coverage of the floods had to evacuate after water from the nearby Buffalo Bayou started to gush into the building. The anchors and news operations at KHOU-TV moved first to a second floor before finally abandoning the station.
The director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Brock Long, said the government expected to conduct a "mass care mission" and predicted that the aftermath of the storm would require FEMA's involvement for years.
"This disaster's going to be a landmark event."
President Donald Trump tweeted Sunday morning that he would visit Texas.
"I will be going to Texas as soon as that trip can be made without causing disruption," the president posted on Twitter. "The focus must be life and safety."
The rescues unfolded a day after the hurricane settled over the Texas coastline. It was blamed for killing at least two people and injuring up to 14.
Anxiety ran high throughout the region between Corpus Christi and Houston because some of the areas with the greatest hurricane damage were inaccessible to rescuers. And the forecast for days of steady rain threatened to inundate the region's flat landscape with as much as 40 inches (100 centimeters).
In the island community of Port Aransas, population 3,800, officials were unable to fully survey the town because of "massive" damage. Police and heavy equipment had only made it into the northernmost street.
"I can tell you I have a very bad feeling and that's about it," said Mayor Charles Bujan, who had called for a mandatory evacuation but did not know how many heeded the order.
Some of the worst damage appeared to be in Rockport, a coastal city of about 10,000 that was directly in the storm's path. The mayor said his community took a blow "right on the nose" that left "widespread devastation," including homes, businesses and schools that were heavily damaged. Some structures were destroyed.
Rockport's roads were a mess of toppled power poles and other debris. Harvey's relentless wind tore the metal sides off the high school gym and twisted the steel door frame of its auditorium.
"We're still in the very infancy stage of getting this recovery started," said Aransas County spokesman Larry Sinclair.
One person was killed in Aransas County when in a fire at home during the storm, county Judge C.H. "Burt" Mills Jr. said.
Another person — a woman who tried to get out of her vehicle in high water — died in flooding in Harris County, where Houston is located, , though authorities had not confirmed a cause of death, said Gary Norman, a spokesman for the Houston emergency operations center.
Meanwhile, the storm was barely moving. Rainfall totals varied across the region, with Galveston receiving around 8 inches (20 centimeters), Houston 11 (28 centimeters) and Aransas 10 (25 centimeters). Tiny Austwell got 15 inches (38 centimeters).
The fiercest hurricane to hit the U.S. in more than a decade came ashore late Friday about 30 miles (48 kilometers) northeast of Corpus Christi as a mammoth Category 4 storm with 130 mph (209 kph) winds.
Harvey weakened Saturday to a tropical storm. By Sunday morning the system was centered about 65 miles southeast of San Antonio, with maximum sustained winds of about 45 mph (72.42 kph), according to the National Hurricane Center, which described the flooding as "catastrophic."
Harvey came ashore as the fiercest hurricane to hit the U.S. in 13 years and the strongest to strike Texas since 1961's Hurricane Carla, the most powerful Texas hurricane on record.
___
Associated Press writers Juan Lozano and Nomaan Merchant in Houston; Tammy Webber in Chicago; David Phillip in Dickinson, Texas; and Jamie Stengle, David Warren and Claudia Lauer and in Dallas contributed to this report. ||||| Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE Residents of storm-ravaged Rockport, Texas were picking through the wreckage of homes and businesses Saturday. The south Texas town took the brunt of Hurricane Harvey's wrath, damaging residential, business and marina areas. (Aug 26) AP
A family evacuates their home in Houston on Aug. 27, 2017. Rescuers answered hundreds of calls for help Sunday as floodwaters from the remnants of Hurricane Harvey rose high enough to begin filling second-story homes, and authorities urged stranded families to seek refuge on their rooftops. (Photo: Mark Mulligan, Houston Chronicle via AP)
HOUSTON — Helicopters plucked desperate flood victims from rooftops Sunday while boats and trucks swept hundreds more residents to safety as Tropical Storm Harvey fueled historic rains and devastating flooding across a wide swath of East Texas.
Late Sunday night,Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said another 1,000 National Guard members will be sent to Houston on Monday, joining 3,000 already activated.
Flooded highways and streets left cars abandoned as weather alerts went off continuously, warning of possible tornadoes — all under a steady, pelting rain.
The unrelenting rain was forecast well into the week, and the Texas Gulf Coast braced for days of catastrophic flooding. The National Weather Service said some areas could be slammed with an "unprecedented" 50 inches of rain by week's end as the storm lingers in the region.
"This event is unprecedented & all impacts are unknown & beyond anything experienced," NWS tweeted. "Follow orders from officials to ensure safety."
Abbott activated the National Guard troops in addition to hundreds of other state emergency personnel aiding local first responders. He said 600 boats were aiding rescue efforts, and the Coast Guard said at least 16 helicopters were tapped for air rescues, with more coming into the area by Monday.
Convoys of buses and a mobile hospital unit were on the way to Houston and the Gulf Coast, as were truckloads of food and volunteers, Abbott said.
“They now know the cavalry is coming,” the governor said, adding: "Our top priority is to protect human life."
From Louisiana, the so-called "Cajun Navy," a group of volunteers with boats, were mobilizing to help with rescues. And from New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie announced he was sending NJ Task Force 1 — a team comprised mainly of police, fire and emergency personnel — as members of the National Urban Search & Rescue Response System to arrived in Texas on Monday
More: Harvey threatens to make natural disaster history
More: Desperate for help, flood victims in Houston turn to Twitter for rescue
Flooding was overwhelming the Houston metropolitan area. Scenes of families being shuttled to safety played out in scores of neighborhoods. The Coast Guard said it rescued more than 100 people from rooftops and conducted more than 2,000 multi-person rescues, its three-boat teams searching block-by-block for stranded residents.
"If you are in a flooding situation, stay calm, do not panic," the Coast Guard said in a statement. "Do not go into the attic, rescuers from the air cannot see you."
The storm had claimed at least two lives, but it was to soon to know the full extent of the death and destruction as power and cellphone outages made communications difficult.
"The flooding in and around America's 4th most-populous city is going to write world headlines and set records for generations," tweeted meteorologist Roger Edwards of the National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center.
More: 'Catastrophic' Houston flooding leads to at least 500 overnight rescues
More: Federal government plans years-long recovery effort in states hit by Harvey
President Trump tweeted support for the agencies battling the disaster and planned to visit the state Tuesday.
“We are coordinating (visit) logistics with state and local officials," the White House said in a statement. "We continue to keep all of those affected in our thoughts and prayers.”
Under persistent, pounding rains, some residents in Richmond, 20 miles south of Houston, took refuge in a Red Cross shelter inside a Catholic Church recreation center.
Austin Herrera, 18, said the water on his family's 10-acre property in nearby Guy, Texas, jumped 1½ feet overnight, as water moccasins slithered under the house. He ushered the horses and other animals to higher ground, then drove the six members of his family to a nearby church who then bused them to the shelter.
"We've seen flooding before," Herrera said. "But never like this."
As of Sunday, the Red Cross shelter in Richmond, Texas, had 49 displaced residents. More could soon be on the way, since Richmond and neighboring Rosenberg sit on the banks of the Brazos River, which experienced catastrophic flooding just last year.
This event could match or surpass that, meteorologists said.
Some residents here were being bused in from another shelter at the Chinese Community Center in Houston, which had already filled to capacity, said Christine Bradley, the shelter manager.
"This is a whole new thing," she said. "It's huge."
More: Exclusive: Get an aerial look at Aransas County after Harvey
Over the next few days, Harvey also is expected to produce total rain accumulations of 5 to 15 inches farther south toward the lower Texas coast, farther west toward the Texas Hill Country, and farther east through southwest and central Louisiana, the weather service said.
But Houston was the focal point of the disaster. The National Weather Service said parts of Harris County had been hit with more than 20 inches of rain in 24 hours. Jeff Lindner, a meteorologist with the county Flood Control District, called the rainfall totals "staggering."
He tweeted late Sunday night that Buffalo Bayou was more than 7 feet above flood stage: "Catastrophic flooding is in progress."
Buffalo Bayou at West Belt is 7.28 ft above flood stage. Catastrophic flooding is in progress #houwx#hounews#txwx — Jeff Lindner (@JeffLindner1) August 28, 2017
This is “worse than the worst-case scenario for Houston,” tweeted WeatherBell meteorologist Ryan Maue.
This storm will not break our spirit. We are in this together and we will rebuild even greater together after #HurricaneHarvey — Sylvester Turner (@SylvesterTurner) August 27, 2017
Mayor Sylvester Turner said emergency officials had been overwhelmed with about 6,000 rescue calls and more than 56,000 calls to 911; he urged residents not to call unless their situation was life-threatening. He ordered the city's George R. Brown convention center opened as a shelter.
Turner confirmed one death in Houston, saying a woman drowned trying to flee her car in high water. Another death was reported in a house fire in coastal Aransas County.
Turner defended his administration's decision not to call for evacuations ahead of the storm, saying it was too difficult to determine which areas of the sprawling city of 2.3 million people were likely to take the worst hit. The entire city has seen at least some flooding, he added.
“You give an order to evacuate, you are creating a nightmare," he said.
Officials were urging people to stay off of the roads. "It's so dangerous that people would give themselves the death penalty," said Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, who was out with his officers making water rescues in his saturated city Sunday. "Sad, breaks your heart for our city and our state," Acevedo said. "But it's Texas. We'll get through it."
The floodwaters themselves are a hideous, toxic brew, with reports of alligators and swarming fire ants in the water.
The storm made landfall Friday night in Aransas County, southwest of Houston, as a furious, Category 4 hurricane with winds exceeding 130 mph. Sheriff Bill Mills said about 30 people were treated for injuries in his county alone.
Two Aransas County municipalities, Rockport, with a population of 10,000, and Port Aransas, with about 4,000 people, took the brunt of the storm. At least 10 injuries were reported from collapsed roofs in Rockport, which is 25 miles northeast of Corpus Christi and 220 miles southwest of Houston.
More: Corpus Christi breathes sigh of relief, prepares for post-Harvey cleanup
More: Texas homeowner shoots intruder as Harvey makes landfall
Nearby Port Aransas was particularly vulnerable perched on a narrow strip of Mustang Island, which sits at the entrance to Corpus Christi Bay. It registered the strongest wind gust of 132 mph from Harvey, according to the National Weather Service.
The two towns, like dozens over others in the area, reported widespread damage as emergency teams searched for any survivors trapped in low-lying areas or collapsed buildings.
Meteorologists were awed by the scope of the disaster.
“This could easily be one of the worst flooding disasters in U.S. history,” tweeted Weather Channel meteorologist Greg Postel, who said he cannot think of an analogous flood event.
Homer reports for KHOU-TV in Texas; Bacon for USA TODAY in McLean, Va. Contributing: Doyle Rice, Rick Jervis, USA TODAY; Julie Garcia, John C. Moritz, Corpus Christi Caller Times
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2wJx7kz ||||| 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 | Harvey may be a tropical storm instead of a hurricane, but the devastation it is unleashing on Houston in the form of heavy rain and flooding is nonetheless severe. "Catastrophic and life-threatening flooding," says the National Weather Service of southeast Texas. "Worse than the worst-case scenario for Houston,” tweeted WeatherBell meteorologist Ryan Maue," per USA Today. Authorities were warning people to get to their roofs, and rescuers had to pick and choose which calls to go out on based on life-and-death severity, reports the AP. Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez used Twitter to field calls for assistance. Among those seeking help was a woman who posted: "I have 2 children with me and the water is swallowing us up." Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said authorities had received more than 2,000 calls for help and would be opening the city's main convention center as a shelter. He urged drivers to stay off flooded roads to avoid adding to the number of stranded people. |
One in 25 patients in U.S. hospitals has an infection acquired as part of his or her care despite modest progress in controlling those pathogens inside medical facilities, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Wednesday in its most comprehensive look at a stubborn and lethal health-care problem.
The CDC's 2011 survey of 183 hospitals showed that an estimated 648,000 patients nationwide suffered 721,000 infections, and 75,000 of them died -- though it is impossible to tell from the data how many deaths were directly attributable to the acquired infection, said Michael Bell, deputy director of CDC's division of health care quality promotion. Nevertheless, "today and every day, more than 200 Americans with healthcare-associated infections will die during their hospital stay," CDC Director Tom Frieden said in a news release.
Clostridium difficile. (Courtesy of CDC)
The most common infections are pneumonia (22 percent), surgical site infections (22 percent), gastrointestinal infections (17 percent), urinary tract infections (13 percent), and bloodstream infections (10 percent), the agency reported in the study, published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
When coupled with the growing risks posed by of antibiotic resistant bacteria, the prevalence of hospital-acquired infections remains a serious problem for care-givers, one that the CDC is continuing to battle on a state-by-state and even hospital-by-hospital basis, Bell said in a news conference Wednesday afternoon.
"Sooner or later everyone is likely to become a patient somewhere," he said. "We go to the hospital hoping to become better, and mostly we do, but not always."
Atop the list of pathogens acquired in hospitals is the bacterium clostridium difficile (commonly know as c. diff), which can cause gastroenterological illnesses so severe that removal of a patient's colon is sometimes required, Bell said. It was responsible for 12.1 percent of the infections turned up by the survey. Also common was methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a staph infection that has become resistant to common antibiotics.
Such infections -- rather than ones associated with devices such as central catheters, urinary catheters and ventilators, comprised the majority of the health-care-related infections revealed by the survey. Indeed, Bell said, the rate of infections from "central lines" that are placed into patients' major blood vessels has been cut nearly in half since 2008, and the infection rate after surgery has declined by 20 percent in the same time.
But urinary tract infections, which are not as dangerous, remain persistent, he said.
About 34 million people were admitted to U.S. acute care hospitals in 2012, according to the study, which did not look at other in-patient settings such as nursing homes. The infection rate declined when compared with the results tallied by the CDC in 2007, but those were based on historical data rather than a survey, Bell said.
At the news conference, Victoria Nahum, executive director of the Safe Care Campaign, urged hospital patients to insist on "compulsive hand hygiene" and other best practices by their care-givers, including physicians, and visitors. That may mean patients will have to overcome the fear of questioning doctors about their hygiene while hospitalized, or have a relative or friend do it for them, she and Bell said.
Nahum's son, Joshua, died in 2006 at age 27 of a health-care-related infection just two months after two other members of her family suffered complications from similar infections.
President Obama's proposed fiscal 2015 budget includes money to battle antibiotic resistance. Bell said the continuing effort will require hospitals to remain judicious about the use of antibiotics in order to gradually lessen resistance to them, in the hope that some will become effective again. He said the problem of widespread resistance also is prompting new approaches to controlling bacteria.
"I remain extremely cautious regarding the growing threat of antibiotic resistance," Nahum said. ||||| At any given time, approximately 1 in 25 patients in the US has at least one infection acquired during their hospital stay, say the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who have released two new reports highlighting the need to improve patient safety by eliminating this threat to patients.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have updated their previous estimates of health care-associated infections (HAI) through the two reports, one of which is published in the New England Journal of Medicine, NEJM and details 2011 hospital infection estimates from a survey of hospitals in 10 states.
The other is a 2012 annual report on national and state-specific progress toward the HAI prevention goals of the US Health and Human Services.
Combined, the CDC say these reports show that, while some progress has been made, more work is needed to eliminate the threat of hospital infections for patients.
Speaking of this need, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden says:
"Although there has been some progress, today and every day, more than 200 Americans with health care-associated infections will die during their hospital stay. The most advanced medical care won't work if clinicians don't prevent infections through basic things such as regular hand hygiene."
He adds that health care workers should follow standard infection control practices all the time to ensure patient safety.
Most common germs from a family of drug-resistant bacteria
Experts say health care workers can ensure patient safety by following standard infection control practices at all times. Experts say health care workers can ensure patient safety by following standard infection control practices at all times.
For the NEJM study, the researchers used data from 183 hospitals in the US during 2011 in order to estimate the burden of hospital infections.
During that year, around 721,800 infections occurred in 648,000 patients, around 75,000 of whom died with HAIs.
The researchers say the breakdown of the most common infections was as follows: 22% pneumonia, 22% surgical site infections, 17% gastrointestinal infections, 13% urinary tract infections and 10% bloodstream infections.
Additionally, the most common germs involved in these infections were C. difficile, Staphylococcus aureus (which includes MRSA), Klebsiella, E. coli, Enterococcus, and Pseudomonas.
The team notes that both Klebsiella and E. coli are members of a bacteria family called Enterobacteriaceae, which is increasingly becoming resistant to last-resort antibiotics known as carbapenems.
'Thousands of lives saved,' but more work to be done
The second report, which focused on a subset of infection types that are required to be reported to the CDC, revealed decreases in certain infections on a national level.
The main findings from this report revealed:
Between 2008 and 2012, there was a 44% decrease in central-line associated bloodstream infections.
During this same time period, there was a 20% decrease in infections related to 10 surgical procedures tracked in the analysis.
Between 2011 and 2012, there was a 4% decrease in hospital-initiated MRSA infections.
During this time, there was also a 2% decrease in hospital-initiated C. difficile infections.
Dr. Patrick Conway, chief medical officer for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), says:
"Our nation is making progress in preventing health care-associated infections through three main mechanisms: financial incentives to improve quality, performance measures and public reporting to improve transparency, and the spreading and scaling of effective interventions."
The CDC say the federal government has made the elimination of HAIs a "top priority," initiating a number of ongoing efforts to protect patients. Additionally, the FY 2015 President's Budget requests funding for the CDC to increase detection of drug-resistant infections and improve protection for patients from these infections.
Dr. Conway says the prevention efforts undertaken by the whole nation "represents thousands of lives saved, prevented patient harm, and the associated reduction in costs across our nation."
Medical News Today recently reported on a study in the Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society that suggested an antibiotic-resistant type of bacteria is infecting an increasing number of children in the US.
Written by Marie Ellis ||||| 1 Jackson S. Musuuza, Tonya J. Roberts, Pascale Carayon, Nasia Safdar. . (2017) Assessing the sustainability of daily chlorhexidine bathing in the intensive care unit of a Veteran’s Hospital by examining nurses’ perspectives and experiences. BMC Infectious Diseases 17:1.
2 Missiani Ochwoto, Lucy Muita, Keith Talaam, Cecilia Wanjala, Frank Ogeto, Faith Wachira, Saida Osman, James Kimotho, Linus Ndegwa. . (2017) Anti-bacterial efficacy of alcoholic hand rubs in the Kenyan market, 2015. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control 6:1.
3 Jocelyn Qi-Min Teo, Samuel Rocky Candra, Shannon Jing-Yi Lee, Shannon Yu-Hng Chia, Hui Leck, Ai-Ling Tan, Hui-Peng Neo, Kenneth Wei-Liang Leow, Yiying Cai, Rachel Pui-Lai Ee, Tze-Peng Lim, Winnie Lee, Andrea Lay-Hoon Kwa. . (2017) Candidemia in a major regional tertiary referral hospital – epidemiology, practice patterns and outcomes. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control 6:1.
4 Tzipi Braun, Ayelet Di Segni, Marina BenShoshan, Roy Asaf, James E. Squires, Sarit Farage Barhom, Efrat Glick Saar, Karen Cesarkas, Gill Smollan, Batia Weiss, Sharon Amit, Nathan Keller, Yael Haberman. . (2017) Fecal microbial characterization of hospitalized patients with suspected infectious diarrhea shows significant dysbiosis. Scientific Reports 7:1.
5 Vicki Parker, Michelle Giles, Laura Graham, Belinda Suthers, Wendy Watts, Tony O’Brien, Andrew Searles. . (2017) Avoiding inappropriate urinary catheter use and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI): a pre-post control intervention study. BMC Health Services Research 17:1.
6 Lynne V. McFarland. . (2017) Primary prevention of Clostridium difficile infections – how difficult can it be?. Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 11:6, 507-521.
7 Sanjay K. Jain. . (2017) The Promise of Molecular Imaging in the Study and Treatment of Infectious Diseases. Molecular Imaging and Biology 19:3, 341-347.
8 Ramar Perumal Samy, Bradley G. Stiles, Octavio L. Franco, Gautam Sethi, Lina H.K. Lim. . (2017) Animal venoms as antimicrobial agents. Biochemical Pharmacology 134, 127-138.
9 Scott R. Curry. . (2017) Clostridium difficile. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine 37:2, 341-369.
10 Mallory J. Suhr, João Carlos Gomes-Neto, Nabaraj Banjara, Diana F. Florescu, David F. Mercer, Peter C. Iwen, Heather E. Hallen-Adams. . (2017) Epidemiological investigation of Candida species causing bloodstream infection in paediatric small bowel transplant recipients. Mycoses 60:6, 366-374.
11 Jill L Campbell, Fiona M Coyer, Alison M Mudge, Ivan M Robertson, Sonya R Osborne. . (2017) Candida albicans colonisation, continence status and incontinence-associated dermatitis in the acute care setting: a pilot study. International Wound Journal 14:3, 488-495.
12 J. Wang, J. Hu, S. Harbarth, D. Pittet, M. Zhou, W. Zingg. . (2017) Burden of healthcare-associated infections in China: results of the 2015 point prevalence survey in Dong Guan City. Journal of Hospital Infection 96:2, 132-138.
13 C. Magno Castelo Branco Fortaleza, M.C. Padoveze, C.R. Veiga Kiffer, A.L. Barth, Irna C. do Rosário Souza Carneiro, H.I. Garcia Giamberardino, J.L. Nobre Rodrigues, L. Santos Filho, M.J. Gonçalves de Mello, M. Severino Pereira, P. Pinto Gontijo Filho, M. Rocha, E.A. Servolo de Medeiros, A.C. Campos Pignatari. . (2017) Multi-state survey of healthcare-associated infections in acute care hospitals in Brazil. Journal of Hospital Infection 96:2, 139-144.
14 A. Deptuła, E. Trejnowska, G. Dubiel, M. Żukowski, A. Misiewska-Kaczur, T. Ozorowski, W. Hryniewicz. . (2017) Prevalence of healthcare-associated infections in Polish adult intensive care units: summary data from the ECDC European Point Prevalence Survey of Hospital-associated Infections and Antimicrobial Use in Poland 2012–2014. Journal of Hospital Infection 96:2, 145-150.
15 Kostantinos Malizos, Michael Blauth, Adrian Danita, Nicola Capuano, Riccardo Mezzoprete, Nicola Logoluso, Lorenzo Drago, Carlo Luca Romanò. . (2017) Fast-resorbable antibiotic-loaded hydrogel coating to reduce post-surgical infection after internal osteosynthesis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 18:2, 159-169.
16 M.A. Pfaller, R.K. Flamm, L.R. Duncan, R.E. Mendes, R.N. Jones, H.S. Sader. . (2017) Antimicrobial activity of tigecycline and cefoperazone/sulbactam tested against 18,386 Gram-negative organisms from Europe and the Asia-Pacific region (2013–2014). Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 88:2, 177-183.
17 KL McCarthy, DL Paterson. . (2017) Increased risk of death with recurrent Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 88:2, 152-157.
18 , , . (2017) Revisiting Species Distribution and Antifungal Susceptibility of Candida Bloodstream Isolates from Latin American Medical Centers. Journal of Fungi 3:2, 24.
19 Lauren Morata, Carrie Ogilvie, Jackie Yon, Allison Johnson. . (2017) Decreasing Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Use With Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Intravenous Lines. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration 47:6, 338-344.
20 Ross C. Puffer, Meghan Murphy, Patrick Maloney, Daryl Kor, Ahmad Nassr, Brett Freedman, Jeremy Fogelson, Mohamad Bydon. . (2017) Increased Total Anesthetic Time Leads to Higher Rates of Surgical Site Infections in Spinal Fusions. SPINE 42:11, E687-E690.
21 Jingjin Xie, Qiang Chen, Poornima Suresh, Subrata Roy, James F. White, Aaron D. Mazzeo. . (2017) Paper-based plasma sanitizers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:20, 5119-5124.
22 Yiying Cai, Indumathi Venkatachalam, Nancy W. Tee, Thean Yen Tan, Asok Kurup, Sin Yew Wong, Chian Yong Low, Yang Wang, Winnie Lee, Yi Xin Liew, Brenda Ang, David C. Lye, Angela Chow, Moi Lin Ling, Helen M. Oh, Cassandra A. Cuvin, Say Tat Ooi, Surinder K. Pada, Chong Hee Lim, Jack Wei Chieh Tan, Kean Lee Chew, Van Hai Nguyen, Dale A. Fisher, Herman Goossens, Andrea L. Kwa, Paul A. Tambyah, Li Yang Hsu, Kalisvar Marimuthu. . (2017) Prevalence of Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Use Among Adult Inpatients in Singapore Acute-Care Hospitals: Results From the First National Point Prevalence Survey. Clinical Infectious Diseases 64:suppl_2, S61-S67.
23 Chunhui Li, Juping Duan, Sidi Liu, Xiujuan Meng, Chenchao Fu, Cui Zeng, Anhua Wu. . (2017) Assessing the risk and disease burden of Clostridium difficile infection among patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia at a University Hospital in Central China. Infection 55.
24 Luciana C. Vitorino, Layara A. Bessa. . (2017) Technological Microbiology: Development and Applications. Frontiers in Microbiology 8.
25 Jo C Dumville, Gill Norman, Maggie J Westby, Jane Blazeby, Emma McFarlane, Nicky J Welton, Louise O'Connor, Julie Cawthorne, Ryan P George, Zhenmi Liu, Emma J Crosbie, Jo C Dumville. . 2017. Intra-operative interventions for preventing surgical site infection: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
26 Mark L. Metersky, Andre C. Kalil. . (2017) New guidelines for nosocomial pneumonia. Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine 23:3, 211-217.
27 Adam Seth Litwin, Ariel C. Avgar, Edmund R. Becker. . (2017) Superbugs versus Outsourced Cleaners. ILR Review 70:3, 610-641.
28 Shixuan Chen, Liangpeng Ge, Aubrey Mueller, Mark A. Carlson, Matthew J. Teusink, Franklin D. Shuler, Jingwei Xie. . (2017) Twisting electrospun nanofiber fine strips into functional sutures for sustained co-delivery of gentamicin and silver. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine 13:4, 1435-1445.
29 Cara B. Thurman, Maura Abbott, Jinfang Liu, Elaine Larson. . (2017) Risk for Health Care–Associated Bloodstream Infections in Pediatric Oncology Patients With Various Malignancies. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing 34:3, 196-202.
30 Sonali D. Advani, Rachael A. Lee, Mariann Schmitz, Bernard C. Camins. . (2017) Impact of Changes to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Definition on Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI) Rates in Intensive Care Units at an Academic Medical Center. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 38:05, 621-623.
31 Richard R. Watkins, Pranab K. Mukherjee, Jyotsna Chandra, Mauricio A. Retuerto, Chrissy Guidry, Nairmeen Haller, Charudutt Paranjape, Mahmoud A. Ghannoum. . (2017) Admission to the Intensive Care Unit is Associated With Changes in the Oral Mycobiome. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 32:4, 278-282.
32 Diana Vilar-Compte, Adrián Camacho-Ortiz, Samuel Ponce-de-León. . (2017) Infection Control in Limited Resources Countries: Challenges and Priorities. Current Infectious Disease Reports 19:5.
33 Michael A. Pfaller, Matteo Bassetti, Leonard R. Duncan, Mariana Castanheira. . (2017) Ceftolozane/tazobactam activity against drug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa causing urinary tract and intraabdominal infections in Europe: report from an antimicrobial surveillance programme (2012–15). Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 72:5, 1386-1395.
34 Peter Bischoff, N Zeynep Kubilay, Benedetta Allegranzi, Matthias Egger, Petra Gastmeier. . (2017) Effect of laminar airflow ventilation on surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 17:5, 553-561.
35 Afif N. Kulaylat, Dorothy V. Rocourt, Abigail B. Podany, Brett W. Engbrecht, Marianne Twilley, Mary C. Santos, Robert E. Cilley, Christopher S. Hollenbeak, Peter W. Dillon. . (2017) Costs of Clostridium difficile infection in pediatric operations: A propensity score–matching analysis. Surgery 161:5, 1376-1386.
36 Lester Caudill, Barry Lawson. . (2017) A unified inter-host and in-host model of antibiotic resistance and infection spread in a hospital ward. Journal of Theoretical Biology 421, 112-126.
37 Judith L. Clayton. . (2017) Indwelling Urinary Catheters: A Pathway to Health Care–Associated Infections. AORN Journal 105:5, 446-452.
38 Moo-Jin Suh, Sarah L. Keasey, Ernst E. Brueggemann, Robert G. Ulrich. . (2017) Antibiotic-dependent perturbations of extended spectrum beta-lactamase producing Klebsiella pneumoniae proteome. PROTEOMICS 17:9, 1700003.
39 F. Pianka, A. L. Mihaljevic. . (2017) Vermeidung postoperativer Infektionen. Der Chirurg 88:5, 401-407.
40 Nathan D. Gundacker, Jeremey B. Walker, Ashutosh Tamhane, Casey D. Morrow, J. Martin Rodriguez. . (2017) Comparative Effectiveness of Faecal Microbiota Transplant by Route of Administration. Journal of Hospital Infection.
41 Emily Toth Martin, Samran Haider, Maria Palleschi, Sommer Eagle, Delfin V. Crisostomo, Pamela Haddox, Laura Harmon, Robin Mazur, Judy Moshos, Dror Marchaim, Keith S. Kaye. . (2017) Bathing hospitalized dependent patients with prepackaged disposable washcloths instead of traditional bath basins: A case-crossover study. American Journal of Infection Control.
42 Yingying Hong, Peter J. Teska, Haley F. Oliver. . (2017) Effects of contact time and concentration on bactericidal efficacy of 3 disinfectants on hard nonporous surfaces. American Journal of Infection Control.
43 Brett W. Carter. . (2017) Bacterial Contamination of CT Equipment. Academic Radiology.
44 Cherisse L. Hall, Betsy L. Lytle, Davin Jensen, Jessica S. Hoff, Francis C. Peterson, Brian F. Volkman, Christopher J. Kristich. . (2017) Structure and dimerization of IreB, a negative regulator of cephalosporin resistance in Enterococcus faecalis. Journal of Molecular Biology.
45 E.K. Johnson, N.R. Malhotra, R. Shannon, D.L. Jacobson, J. Green, C.K. Rigsby, J.L. Holl, E.Y. Cheng. . (2017) Urinary tract infection after voiding cystourethrogram. Journal of Pediatric Urology.
46 Jack C. He, Brenda M. Zosa, David Schechtman, Brian Brajcich, Jonathan C. Savakus, Amanda L. Wojahn, Derek Z. Wang, Jeffrey A. Claridge. . (2017) Leaving the Skin Incision Open May Not Be as Beneficial as We Have Been Taught. Surgical Infections 18:4, 431-439.
47 Stijn W. de Jonge, Quirine J.J. Boldingh, Joseph S. Solomkin, Benedetta Allegranzi, Matthias Egger, E. Patchen Dellinger, Marja A. Boermeester. . (2017) Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Prophylactic Intra-Operative Wound Irrigation for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections. Surgical Infections 18:4, 508-519.
48 Nongyao Kasatpibal, Joanne D. Whitney, E. Patchen Dellinger, Bala G. Nair, Kenneth C. Pike. . (2017) Failure to Redose Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Long Surgery Increases Risk of Surgical Site Infection. Surgical Infections 18:4, 474-484.
49 Jae Hyun Shin, Cirle A. Warren. . (2017) Collateral damage during antibiotic treatment of C. difficile infection in the aged host: Insights into why recurrent disease happens. Gut Microbes 59, 1-7.
50 Zachary M. Burcham, Heather R. Jordan. . 2017. History, current, and future use of microorganisms as physical evidence. Forensic Microbiology, 25-55.
51 Meander E. Sips, Marc J. M. Bonten, Maaike S. M. van Mourik. . (2017) Semiautomated Surveillance of Deep Surgical Site Infections After Primary Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 89, 1-4.
52 Geb W. Thomas. . (2017) How bedside feedback improves head-of-bed angle compliance for intubated patients. IISE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering 7:2, 73-80.
53 Mohd. H. Abdul-Aziz, Jeffrey Lipman, Jason A. Roberts. . (2017) Antibiotic dosing for multidrug-resistant pathogen pneumonia. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 30:2, 231-239.
54 Ying M. Tang, Christian D. Stone. . (2017) Clostridium difficile infection in inflammatory bowel disease: challenges in diagnosis and treatment. Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology 10:2, 112-123.
55 Ye Tian, Zhongyu Jian, Jianzhong Wang, Wei He, Qinyu Liu, Kunjie Wang, Hong Li, Hong Tan. . (2017) Antimicrobial activity Study of triclosan-loaded WBPU on Proteus mirabilis in vitro. International Urology and Nephrology 49:4, 563-571.
56 A. P. MEIJS, J. A. FERREIRA, S. C. DE GREEFF, M. C. VOS, M. B. G. KOEK. . (2017) Incidence of surgical site infections cannot be derived reliably from point prevalence survey data in Dutch hospitals. Epidemiology and Infection 145:05, 970-980.
57 Adam B. Raff, Qing Yu Weng, Jeffrey M. Cohen, Nicole Gunasekera, Jean-Phillip Okhovat, Priyanka Vedak, Cara Joyce, Daniela Kroshinsky, Arash Mostaghimi. . (2017) A predictive model for diagnosis of lower extremity cellulitis: A cross-sectional study. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 76:4, 618-625.e2.
58 Sangeeta Sastry, Nadia Masroor, Gonzalo Bearman, Rana Hajjeh, Alison Holmes, Ziad Memish, Britta Lassmann, Didier Pittet, Fiona Macnab, Rachel Kamau, Evelyn Wesangula, Paras Pokharel, Paul Brown, Frances Daily, Fatma Amer, Jaime Torres, Miguel O’Ryan, Revathi Gunturu, Andre Bulabula, Shaheen Mehtar. . (2017) The 17th International Congress on Infectious Diseases workshop on developing infection prevention and control resources for low- and middle-income countries. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 57, 138-143.
59 Marin H. Kollef. . (2017) Rebuttal From Dr Kollef. Chest 151:4, 744-745.
60 Mark E. Hamill, Christopher R. Reed, Sandy L. Fogel, Eric H. Bradburn, Kinga A. Powers, Katie M. Love, Christopher C. Baker, Bryan R. Collier. . (2017) Contact Isolation Precautions in Trauma Patients: An Analysis of Infectious Complications. Surgical Infections 18:3, 273-281.
61 Jackson S. Musuuza, Ajay K. Sethi, Tonya J. Roberts, Nasia Safdar. . (2017) Implementation of daily chlorhexidine bathing to reduce colonization by multidrug-resistant organisms in a critical care unit. American Journal of Infection Control.
62 Walter Zingg, Susan Hopkins, Angèle Gayet-Ageron, Alison Holmes, Mike Sharland, Carl Suetens, Maria Almeida, Jolanta Asembergiene, Michael A. Borg, Ana Budimir, Shona Cairns, Robert Cunney, Aleksander Deptula, Pilar Gallego Berciano, Olafur Gudlaugsson, Avgi Hadjiloucas, Naïma Hammami, Wendy Harrison, Elisabeth Heisbourg, Jana Kolman, Flora Kontopidou, Brian Kristensen, Outi Lyytikäinen, Pille Märtin, Gerry McIlvenny, Maria Luisa Moro, Brar Piening, Elisabeth Presterl, Roxana Serban, Emma Smid, Nina K. Sorknes, Maria Stefkovicova, Inese Sviestina, Rita Szabo, Hana Tkadlecova, Rossitza Vatcheva-Dobrevska, Delphine VerjatTrannoy. . (2017) Health-care-associated infections in neonates, children, and adolescents: an analysis of paediatric data from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control point-prevalence survey. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 17:4, 381-389.
63 Jean-Winoc Decousser. . (2017) Prevention of paediatric nosocomial infections: adapting before acting. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 17:4, 350-351.
64 Richard J Vickers, Glenn S Tillotson, Richard Nathan, Sabine Hazan, John Pullman, Christopher Lucasti, Kenneth Deck, Bruce Yacyshyn, Benedict Maliakkal, Yves Pesant, Bina Tejura, David Roblin, Dale N Gerding, Mark H Wilcox, Amit Bhan, Wayne Campbell, Teena Chopra, Kenneth Deck, Yoav Golan, Ian Gordon, Ravi Kamepalli, Sahil Khanna, Christine Lee, Christopher Lucasti, Benedict Maliakkal, Irene Minang, Kathleen Mullane, Richard Nathan, Matthew Oughton, Yves Pesant, John Phillips, John Pullman, Paul Riska, Christian Schrock, Jonathan Siegel, Alon Steinberg, David Talan, Stephen Tamang, Michael Tan, Karl Weiss, Chia Wang, Bruce Yacyshyn, Jo-Anne Young, Jonathan Zenilman. . (2017) Efficacy and safety of ridinilazole compared with vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
65 Michael Mazzeffi, James Gammie, Bradley Taylor, Sarah Cardillo, Nicholina Haldane-Lutterodt, Anthony Amoroso, Anthony Harris, Kerri Thom. . (2017) Healthcare-Associated Infections in Cardiac Surgery Patients With Prolonged Intensive Care Unit Stay. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 103:4, 1165-1170.
66 Xiuhua Z. Bell, Katherine A. Hinderer, Dorothea M. Winter, Erica A. Alessandrini. . (2017) Preventing sternal wound infections after open-heart surgery. Nursing 47:4, 61-64.
67 Diego R. Falci, Claudio M. B. Stadnik, Alessandro C. Pasqualotto. . (2017) A Review of Diagnostic Methods for Invasive Fungal Diseases: Challenges and Perspectives. Infectious Diseases and Therapy 16.
68 Keita Morikane. . (2017) Epidemiology and risk factors associated with surgical site infection after different types of hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery. Surgery Today 370.
69 Kevin B. Spicer, Jennifer Green, Barnesh Dhada. . (2017) Hospital-acquired infections in paediatric medical wards at a tertiary hospital in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Paediatrics and International Child Health 31, 1-7.
70 Lisanne Catherine Cruz, Jeffrey S. Fine, Subhadra Nori. . (2017) Barriers to discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: a teamwork approach. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 30:2, 137-147.
71 Megan Garland, Sebastian Loscher, Matthew Bogyo. . (2017) Chemical Strategies To Target Bacterial Virulence. Chemical Reviews 117:5, 4422-4461.
72 Emily K Moser, Natania S Field, Paula M Oliver. . (2017) Aberrant Th2 inflammation drives dysfunction of alveolar macrophages and susceptibility to bacterial pneumonia. Cellular & Molecular Immunology 140.
73 Deborah D. Garbee, Stephanie S. Pierce, Jennifer Manning. . (2017) Opportunistic Fungal Infections in Critical Care Units. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America 29:1, 67-79.
74 Caroline Green, Jeremy C. Pamplin, Kristine N. Chafin, Clinton K. Murray, Heather C. Yun. . (2017) Pulsed-xenon ultraviolet light disinfection in a burn unit: Impact on environmental bioburden, multidrug-resistant organism acquisition and healthcare associated infections. Burns 43:2, 388-396.
75 Paul A. Anderson, James Bernatz, Nasia Safdar. . (2017) Clostridium difficile Infection. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 25:3, 214-223.
76 Jerry Jacob, Jingwei Wu, Jennifer Han, Deborah B. Nelson. . (2017) Clostridium difficile in an Urban, University-Affiliated Long-Term Acute-Care Hospital. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 38:03, 294-299.
77 Alexandra E. Paharik, Marta Kotasinska, Anna Both, Tra-My N. Hoang, Henning Büttner, Paroma Roy, Paul D. Fey, Alexander R. Horswill, Holger Rohde. . (2017) The metalloprotease SepA governs processing of accumulation-associated protein and shapes intercellular adhesive surface properties in S taphylococcus epidermidis. Molecular Microbiology 103:5, 860-874.
78 Thomas A. Dombrowsky, Linda Frye. . (2017) Preconceptions about the infection process among prenursing students. American Journal of Infection Control 45:3, 330-332.
79 Aurora Pop-Vicas, Jackson S. Musuuza, Michelle Schmitz, Ahmed Al-Niaimi, Nasia Safdar. . (2017) Incidence and risk factors for surgical site infection post-hysterectomy in a tertiary care center. American Journal of Infection Control 45:3, 284-287.
80 John Childress, Debborah Burch, Cheryl Kucharski, Carol Young, Ella A. Kazerooni, Matthew S. Davenport. . (2017) Bacterial Contamination of CT Equipment. Academic Radiology.
81 Dani O. Gonzalez, Erica Ambeba, Peter C. Minneci, Katherine J. Deans, Benedict C. Nwomeh. . (2017) Surgical site infection after stoma closure in children: outcomes and predictors. Journal of Surgical Research 209, 234-241.
82 Eric Langfitt, Jennifer E. Prittie, Yekaterina Buriko, Janine M. Calabro. . (2017) Disorders of micturition in small animal patients: clinical significance, etiologies, and management strategies. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care 27:2, 164-177.
83 Kaiwen Ni, Bingbing Chen, Hui Jin, Qingxin Kong, Xiaoping Ni, Hong Xu. . (2017) Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding environmental cleaning among environmental service workers in Chinese hospitals. American Journal of Infection Control.
84 O. Fasugba, J. Koerner, B.G. Mitchell, A. Gardner. . (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of antiseptic agents for meatal cleaning in the prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Journal of Hospital Infection 95:3, 233-242.
85 John Bak, Jason Le, Toshio Takayama, Angela Gibson, Sara Zerbel, Nasia Safdar, Jon S. Matsumura. . (2017) Effect of 2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate-Impregnated Cloth on Surgical Site Infections in Vascular Surgery. Annals of Vascular Surgery.
86 Mazen S Bader, Mark Loeb, Annie A Brooks. . (2017) An update on the management of urinary tract infections in the era of antimicrobial resistance. Postgraduate Medicine 129:2, 242-258.
87 Han Du, Sumant Puri, Andrew McCall, Hannah L. Norris, Thomas Russo, Mira Edgerton. . (2017) Human Salivary Protein Histatin 5 Has Potent Bactericidal Activity against ESKAPE Pathogens. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 7.
88 Danielle Ahn, Alice Prince. . (2017) Host-Pathogen Interface: Progress in Understanding the Pathogenesis of Infection Due to Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria in the Intensive Care Unit. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 215:suppl_1, S1-S8.
89 Marin H. Kollef, Matteo Bassetti, Bruno Francois, Jason Burnham, George Dimopoulos, Jose Garnacho-Montero, Jeffrey Lipman, Charles-Edouard Luyt, David P. Nicolau, Maarten J. Postma, Antonio Torres, Tobias Welte, Richard G. Wunderink. . (2017) The intensive care medicine research agenda on multidrug-resistant bacteria, antibiotics, and stewardship. Intensive Care Medicine.
90 Kai Yu, Joey C.Y. Lo, Mei Yan, Xiaoqiang Yang, Donald E. Brooks, Robert E.W. Hancock, Dirk Lange, Jayachandran N. Kizhakkedathu. . (2017) Anti-adhesive antimicrobial peptide coating prevents catheter associated infection in a mouse urinary infection model. Biomaterials 116, 69-81.
91 Matthew B. Rogers, Victoria Aveson, Brian Firek, Andrew Yeh, Brandon Brooks, Rachel Brower-Sinning, Jennifer Steve, Jillian F. Banfield, Amer Zureikat, Melissa Hogg, Brian A. Boone, Herbert J. Zeh, Michael J. Morowitz. . (2017) Disturbances of the Perioperative Microbiome Across Multiple Body Sites in Patients Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy. Pancreas 46:2, 260-267.
92 B Radha Krishnan, Kenneth D James, Karen Polowy, B J Bryant, Anu Vaidya, Steve Smith, Christopher P Laudeman. . (2017) CD101, a novel echinocandin with exceptional stability properties and enhanced aqueous solubility. The Journal of Antibiotics 70:2, 130-135.
93 Andreia S. Azevedo, Carina Almeida, Luciana C. Gomes, Carla Ferreira, Filipe J. Mergulhão, Luís F. Melo, Nuno F. Azevedo. . (2017) An in vitro model of catheter-associated urinary tract infections to investigate the role of uncommon bacteria on the Escherichia coli microbial consortium. Biochemical Engineering Journal 118, 64-69.
94 Sanjeev Mariathasan, Man-Wah Tan. . (2017) Antibody–Antibiotic Conjugates: A Novel Therapeutic Platform against Bacterial Infections. Trends in Molecular Medicine 23:2, 135-149.
95 Zorana M. Djordjevic, Marko M. Folic, Slobodan M. Jankovic. . (2017) Distribution and antibiotic susceptibility of pathogens isolated from adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care unit. Journal of Infection and Public Health.
96 Rodrigo Rodrigues, Grant E. Barber, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan. . (2017) A Comprehensive Study of Costs Associated With Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 38:02, 196-202.
97 Ana Cecilia Bardossy, Rachna Jayaprakash, Anjali C. Alangaden, Patricia Starr, Odaliz Abreu-Lanfranco, Katherine Reyes, Marcus J. Zervos, George J. Alangaden. . (2017) Impact and Limitations of the 2015 National Health and Safety Network Case Definition on Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection Rates. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 38:02, 239-241.
98 Margaret A. Olsen, Fang Tian, Anna E. Wallace, Katelin B. Nickel, David K. Warren, Victoria J. Fraser, Nandini Selvam, Barton H. Hamilton. . (2017) Use of Quantile Regression to Determine the Impact on Total Health Care Costs of Surgical Site Infections Following Common Ambulatory Procedures. Annals of Surgery 265:2, 331-339.
99 Brian P. Blackwood, Catherine J. Hunter, Julia Grabowski. . (2017) Variability in Antibiotic Regimens for Surgical Necrotizing Enterocolitis Highlights the Need for New Guidelines. Surgical Infections 18:2, 215-220.
100 Alessandra Fusco, Lorena Coretti, Vittoria Savio, Elisabetta Buommino, Francesca Lembo, Giovanna Donnarumma. . (2017) Biofilm Formation and Immunomodulatory Activity of Proteus mirabilis Clinically Isolated Strains. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 18:2, 414.
101 Ronen Ben-Ami, Judith Berman, Ana Novikov, Edna Bash, Yael Shachor-Meyouhas, Shiri Zakin, Yasmin Maor, Jalal Tarabia, Vered Schechner, Amos Adler, Talya Finn. . (2017) Multidrug-Resistant Candida haemulonii and C. auris , Tel Aviv, Israel. Emerging Infectious Diseases 23:2.
102 Laura Pedersen, Kimberly Elgin, Barbara Peace, Nadia Masroor, Michelle Doll, Kakotan Sanogo, Wilhelm Zuelzer, Gene Peterson, Michael P. Stevens, Gonzalo Bearman. . (2017) Barriers, perceptions, and adherence: Hand hygiene in the operating room and endoscopy suite. American Journal of Infection Control.
103 Wilcox, Mark H., Gerding, Dale N., Poxton, Ian R., Kelly, Ciaran, Nathan, Richard, Birch, Thomas, Cornely, Oliver A., Rahav, Galia, Bouza, Emilio, Lee, Christine, Jenkin, Grant, Jensen, Werner, Kim, You-Sun, Yoshida, Junichi, Gabryelski, Lori, Pedley, Alison, Eves, Karen, Tipping, Robert, Guris, Dalya, Kartsonis, Nicholas, Dorr, Mary-Beth, . . (2017) Bezlotoxumab for Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection. New England Journal of Medicine 376:4, 305-317.
104 Marie Pichenot, Rozenn Héquette-Ruz, Remi Le Guern, Bruno Grandbastien, Clément Charlet, Frédéric Wallet, Sophie Schiettecatte, Fanny Loeuillet, Benoit Guery, Tatiana Galperine. . (2017) Fidaxomicin for treatment of Clostridium difficile infection in clinical practice: a prospective cohort study in a French University Hospital. Infection.
105 H. M. Sharon Goh, M. H. Adeline Yong, Kelvin Kian Long Chong, Kimberly A. Kline. . (2017) Model systems for the study of Enterococcal colonization and infection. Virulence 107, 1-38.
106 Gabriela Fonseca, Marissa Burgermaster, Elaine Larson, David S. Seres. . (2017) The Relationship Between Parenteral Nutrition and Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 014860711668843.
107 Jiaxuan Chen, Caitlin Howell, Carolyn A. Haller, Madhukar S. Patel, Perla Ayala, Katherine A. Moravec, Erbin Dai, Liying Liu, Irini Sotiri, Michael Aizenberg, Joanna Aizenberg, Elliot L. Chaikof. . (2017) An immobilized liquid interface prevents device associated bacterial infection in vivo. Biomaterials 113, 80-92.
108 Fainareti N. Zervou, Ioannis M. Zacharioudakis, Jaclynn Kurpewski, Eleftherios Mylonakis. . 2017. T2 Magnetic Resonance for Fungal Diagnosis. Human Fungal Pathogen Identification, 305-319.
109 Evelina Tacconelli, Federico Foschi, Christina Forstner, Roger G. Finch, Mathias W. Pletz. . 2017. Principles of Anti-infective Therapy and Surgical Prophylaxis. Infectious Diseases, 1145-1161.e2.
110 David J. Weber, William A. Rutala. . (2017) Response to letter to the editor regarding “Occupational health risks associated with the use of germicides in health care”. American Journal of Infection Control 45:1, 97-98.
111 Randy A. Taplitz, Michele L. Ritter, Francesca J. Torriani. . 2017. Infection Prevention and Control, and Antimicrobial Stewardship. Infectious Diseases, 54-61.e1.
112 Shawn H. MacVane. . (2017) Antimicrobial Resistance in the Intensive Care Unit. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 32:1, 25-37.
113 David A. Enoch, Huina Yang, Sani H. Aliyu, Christianne Micallef. . 2017. The Changing Epidemiology of Invasive Fungal Infections. Human Fungal Pathogen Identification, 17-65.
114 P Holmstrup, B Klausen. . (2017) The growing problem of antimicrobial resistance. Oral Diseases.
115 Yue Qu, Helmut Thissen, David McGiffin, Anton Y. Peleg. . (2017) Optimizing Microplate Biofilm Assays to Screen Anti-infective Surfaces. Trends in Biotechnology 35:1, 3-5.
116 S. Shafaei, J. Dörrstein, J.P. Guggenbichler, C. Zollfrank. . (2017) Cellulose acetate-based composites with antimicrobial properties from embedded molybdenum trioxide particles. Letters in Applied Microbiology 64:1, 43.
117 Kristen A. Ban, Joseph P. Minei, Christine Laronga, Brian G. Harbrecht, Eric H. Jensen, Donald E. Fry, Kamal M.F. Itani, E Patchen Dellinger, Clifford Y. Ko, Therese M. Duane. . (2017) American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: Surgical Site Infection Guidelines, 2016 Update. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 224:1, 59-74.
118 Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz, Laurie Conway. . (2017) Journal club: Commentary on “Inappropriate urinary catheter reinsertion in hospitalized older patients”. American Journal of Infection Control 45:1, 6-7.
119 Joseph E. Pellegrini, Paloma Toledo, David E. Soper, William C. Bradford, Deborah A. Cruz, Barbara S. Levy, Lauren A. Lemieux. . (2017) Consensus Bundle on Prevention of Surgical Site Infections After Major Gynecologic Surgery. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing 46:1, 100-113.
120 Tariku Gebre Haile, Eshetu Haileselassie Engeda, Abdella Amano Abdo. . (2017) Compliance with Standard Precautions and Associated Factors among Healthcare Workers in Gondar University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2017, 1-8.
121 Elizabeth Davis, Tyler Sloan, Krista Aurelius, Angela Barbour, Elijah Bodey, Brigette Clark, Celeste Dennis, Rachel Drown, Megan Fleming, Allison Humbert, Elizabeth Glasgo, Trent Kerns, Kelly Lingro, MacKenzie McMillin, Aaron Meyer, Breanna Pope, April Stalevicz, Brittney Steffen, Austin Steindl, Carolyn Williams, Carmen Wimberley, Robert Zenas, Kristen Butela, Hans Wildschutte. . (2017) Antibiotic discovery throughout the Small World Initiative: A molecular strategy to identify biosynthetic gene clusters involved in antagonistic activity. MicrobiologyOpen.
122 Y. Chen, J.Y. Zhao, X. Shan, X.L. Han, S.G. Tian, F.Y. Chen, X.T. Su, Y.S. Sun, L.Y. Huang, L. Han, Aiwu Luo, Binghua Zhu, Bo Wang, Bo Zhang, Chaoyang Wen, Guocong Zhang, Haiqing Yang, Hong Zhang, Hongyan Zhai, Hui Wang, Jieran Shi, Jing Pan, Jing Xia, Jing Yang, Jinguang Luo, Juan Yao, Lijuan Li, Lili Chen, Liping Gao, Lixia Wu, Maihong He, Ming Yang, Mingzhen Cai, Nan Wang, Qi Gong, Qing Tan, Qiongshu Wang, Shiyu Cao, Sumin Guan, Suping Ran, Wei Li, Wei Tian, Weihong Jian, Wenjie Ma, Wenjun Jiang, Wenqin Cheng, Xiaolian Lu, Xiaoyu Li, Xintian Kong, Xuesong Qian, Yan Li, Yan Long, Yan Wang, Yingchun Shi, Yongjing Wang, Yu Ai, Yuan Zheng, Yumei Zhuang, Zhigang Wang, Zhiying Ju, Zuofang Wang. . (2017) A point-prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infection in fifty-two Chinese hospitals. Journal of Hospital Infection 95:1, 105-111.
123 S. W. de Jonge, J. J. Atema, J. S. Solomkin, M. A. Boermeester. . (2017) Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of triclosan-coated sutures for the prevention of surgical-site infection. British Journal of Surgery 104:2, e118-e133.
124 Joseph E. Pellegrini, Paloma Toledo, David E. Soper, William C. Bradford, Deborah A. Cruz, Barbara S. Levy, Lauren A. Lemieux. . (2017) Consensus Bundle on Prevention of Surgical Site Infections After Major Gynecologic Surgery. Anesthesia & Analgesia 124:1, 233-242.
125 Kristen V. Dicks, Deverick J. Anderson, Arthur W. Baker, Daniel J. Sexton, Sarah S. Lewis. . (2017) Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Utilization Related to Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Infections in Community Hospitals. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 38:01, 31-38.
126 Nasia Safdar, Sharmila Sengupta, Jackson S. Musuuza, Manisha Juthani-Mehta, Marci Drees, Lilian M Abbo, Aaron M. Milstone, Jon P. Furuno, Meera Varman, Deverick J. Anderson, Daniel J. Morgan, Loren G. Miller, Graham M. Snyder, . . (2017) Status of the Prevention of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms in International Settings: A Survey of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 38:01, 53-60.
127 Kang-Kyun Wang, Bong-Jin Kim, Il-Heo, Seong-Jin Jung, Jeong-Wook Hwang, Yong-Rok Kim. . (2017) Fabrication and characterization of antimicrobial surface-modified stainless steel for bio-application. Surface and Coatings Technology 310, 256-262.
128 Gaurav Kistangari, Rocio Lopez, Bo Shen. . (2017) Frequency and Risk Factors of Clostridium difficile Infection in Hospitalized Patients With Pouchitis. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 23:4, 661.
129 Preetida J. Bhetariya, Neha Sharma, Pragati Singh, Priyanka Tripathi, Santosh K. Upadhyay, Poonam Gautam. . 2017. Human Fungal Pathogens and Drug Resistance Against Azole Drugs. Drug Resistance in Bacteria, Fungi, Malaria, and Cancer, 387-428.
130 A.Yu Lubnin, K.A. Popugaev. . 2017. Universal Precautions in the Intensive Care Unit. Essentials of Neuroanesthesia, 945-949.
131 Mouna Doufair, Catherine Eckert, Laurence Drieux, Come Amani-Moibeni, Liliane Bodin, Michel Denis, Jean Didier Grange, Guillaume Arlet, Frédéric Barbut. . (2017) Clostridium difficile bacteremia: Report of two cases in French hospitals and comprehensive review of the literature. IDCases 8, 54-62.
132 David K. Warren, Katelin B. Nickel, Anna E. Wallace, Daniel Mines, Fang Tian, William J. Symons, Victoria J. Fraser, Margaret A. Olsen. . (2017) Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection After Cholecystectomy. Open Forum Infectious Diseases 4:2.
133 Mindy G. Schuster, Angela A. Cleveland, Erik R. Dubberke, Carol A. Kauffman, Robin K. Avery, Shahid Husain, David L. Paterson, Fernanda P. Silveira, Tom M. Chiller, Kaitlin Benedict, Kathleen Murphy, Peter G. Pappas. . (2017) Infections in Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients: Results From the Organ Transplant Infection Project, a Multicenter, Prospective, Cohort Study. Open Forum Infectious Diseases 4:2.
134 Laura Hopkins, Jennifer Brown-Broderick, James Hearn, Janine Malcolm, James Chan, Wendy Hicks-Boucher, Filomena De Sousa, Mark C. Walker, Sylvain Gagné. . (2017) Implementation of a referral to discharge glycemic control initiative for reduction of surgical site infections in gynecologic oncology patients. Gynecologic Oncology.
135 Sanjay K. Jain. . 2017. Introduction. Imaging Infections, 1-15.
136 Joseph E. Pellegrini, Paloma Toledo, David E. Soper, William C. Bradford, Deborah A. Cruz, Barbara S. Levy, Lauren A. Lemieux. . (2017) Consensus Bundle on Prevention of Surgical Site Infections After Major Gynecologic Surgery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 129:1, 50-61.
137 Yvette H van Beurden, Pieter F de Groot, Els van Nood, Max Nieuwdorp, Josbert J Keller, Abraham Goorhuis. . (2016) Complications, effectiveness, and long term follow-up of fecal microbiota transfer by nasoduodenal tube for treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. United European Gastroenterology Journal, 205064061667809.
138 Iryna Janssen, Paul Cooper, Katrin Gunka, Maja Rupnik, Daniela Wetzel, Ortrud Zimmermann, Uwe Groß. . (2016) High prevalence of nontoxigenic Clostridium difficile isolated from hospitalized and non-hospitalized individuals in rural Ghana. International Journal of Medical Microbiology 306:8, 652-656.
139 Bionca M. Davis, Jingjing Yin, Doug Blomberg, Isaac Chun-Hai Fung. . (2016) Impact of a prevention bundle on Clostridium difficile infection rates in a hospital in the Southeastern United States. American Journal of Infection Control 44:12, 1729-1731.
140 Briana R. Wilson, Alexander R. Bogdan, Masaki Miyazawa, Kazunori Hashimoto, Yoshiaki Tsuji. . (2016) Siderophores in Iron Metabolism: From Mechanism to Therapy Potential. Trends in Molecular Medicine 22:12, 1077-1090.
141 Brad S. Oriel, Kamal M.F. Itani. . (2016) Surgical Hand Antisepsis and Surgical Site Infections. Surgical Infections 17:6, 632-644.
142 Michail Karavolos, Alina Holban. . (2016) Nanosized Drug Delivery Systems in Gastrointestinal Targeting: Interactions with Microbiota. Pharmaceuticals 9:4, 62.
143 Annie H. Cheung Lam, Natalie Sandoval, Ritambhara Wadhwa, Janine Gilkes, Thai Q. Do, William Ernst, Su-Ming Chiang, Suzanne Kosina, H. Howard Xu, Gary Fujii, Edith Porter. . (2016) Assessment of free fatty acids and cholesteryl esters delivered in liposomes as novel class of antibiotic. BMC Research Notes 9:1.
144 Jan Hodek, Veronika Zajícová, Irena Lovětinská-Šlamborová, Ivan Stibor, Jana Müllerová, Jan Weber. . (2016) Protective hybrid coating containing silver, copper and zinc cations effective against human immunodeficiency virus and other enveloped viruses. BMC Microbiology 16:1.
145 Daniela Pires, Virginie Prendki, Gesuele Renzi, Carolina Fankhauser, Valerie Sauvan, Benedikt Huttner, Jacques Schrenzel, Stephan Harbarth. . (2016) Low frequency of asymptomatic carriage of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in an acute care geriatric hospital: prospective cohort study in Switzerland. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control 5:1.
146 J. Kristie Johnson, Gwen L. Robinson, LiCheng Zhao, Anthony D. Harris, O. Colin Stine, Kerri A. Thom. . (2016) Comparison of molecular typing methods for the analyses of Acinetobacter baumannii from ICU patients. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 86:4, 345-350.
147 Christine Bui, Elizabeth Zhu, Monica A. Donnelley, Machelle D. Wilson, Margaret Morita, Stuart H. Cohen, Jennifer Brown. . (2016) Antimicrobial stewardship programs that target only high-cost, broad-spectrum antimicrobials miss opportunities to reduce Clostridium difficile infections. American Journal of Infection Control 44:12, 1684-1686.
148 Benedetta Allegranzi, Peter Bischoff, Stijn de Jonge, N Zeynep Kubilay, Bassim Zayed, Stacey M Gomes, Mohamed Abbas, Jasper J Atema, Sarah Gans, Miranda van Rijen, Marja A Boermeester, Matthias Egger, Jan Kluytmans, Didier Pittet, Joseph S Solomkin. . (2016) New WHO recommendations on preoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 16:12, e276-e287.
149 Matthew Paul Muller. . (2016) Measuring hand hygiene when it matters. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 16:12, 1306-1307.
150 Hongbing Jia, Pengcheng Du, Hui Yang, Yuanyuan Zhang, Jing Wang, Wen Zhang, Guiling Han, Na Han, Zhiyuan Yao, Haiyin Wang, Jing Zhang, Zhen Wang, Qingming Ding, Yujun Qiang, Frédéric Barbut, George F. Gao, Yongtong Cao, Ying Cheng, Chen Chen. . (2016) Nosocomial transmission of Clostridium difficile ribotype 027 in a Chinese hospital, 2012–2014, traced by whole genome sequencing. BMC Genomics 17:1.
151 Vinod B. Damodaran, N. Sanjeeva Murthy. . (2016) Bio-inspired strategies for designing antifouling biomaterials. Biomaterials Research 20:1.
152 Matthias T. Buhmann, Philipp Stiefel, Katharina Maniura-Weber, Qun Ren. . (2016) In Vitro Biofilm Models for Device-Related Infections. Trends in Biotechnology 34:12, 945-948.
153 Rohit Gupta, Emily Hannon, Shirish Huprikar, Adel Bassily-Marcus, Anthony Manasia, John Oropello, Roopa Kohli-Seth. . (2016) Getting to zero: Reduction in the incidence of multidrug-resistant organism infections using an integrated infection control protocol in an intensive care unit. American Journal of Infection Control 44:12, 1695-1697.
154 Carol E. Chenoweth, Sanjay Saint. . (2016) Urinary Tract Infections. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 30:4, 869-885.
155 Yaowen Zhang, Jing Zhang, Dong Wei, Zhirong Yang, Yanyan Wang, Zhiyuan Yao. . (2016) Annual surveys for point-prevalence of healthcare-associated infection in a tertiary hospital in Beijing, China, 2012-2014. BMC Infectious Diseases 16:1.
156 Louise Talley, Jennifer Lamb, Jami Harl, Heather Lorenz, Lindsey Green. . (2016) HAP prevention for nonventilated adults in acute care. Nursing Management (Springhouse) 47:12, 42-48.
157 Maja Rupnik, Arjana Tambic Andrasevic, Elena Trajkovska Dokic, Ivanka Matas, Milica Jovanovic, Selma Pasic, Aleksander Kocuvan, Sandra Janezic. . (2016) Distribution of Clostridium difficile PCR ribotypes and high proportion of 027 and 176 in some hospitals in four South Eastern European countries. Anaerobe 42, 142-144.
158 Hanna K. Welch, Jerod L. Nagel, Twisha S. Patel, Tejal N. Gandhi, Benrong Chen, John De Leon, Carol E. Chenoweth, Laraine L. Washer, Krishna Rao, Gregory A. Eschenauer. . (2016) Effect of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention on outcomes for patients with Clostridium difficile infection. American Journal of Infection Control 44:12, 1539-1543.
159 Andre Arizpe, Kelly R. Reveles, Shrina D. Patel, Samuel L. Aitken. . (2016) Updates in the Management of Cephalosporin-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria. Current Infectious Disease Reports 18:12.
160 A. Dramowski, A. Whitelaw, M.F. Cotton. . (2016) Burden, spectrum, and impact of healthcare-associated infection at a South African children's hospital. Journal of Hospital Infection 94:4, 364-372.
161 Gang Liu, Si Chen, Jun Fang, Baoshan Xu, Shuang Li, Yonghong Hao, Naif A. Al-Dhabi, Shucai Deng, Veeramuthu Duraipandiyan. . (2016) Vancomycin microspheres reduce postoperative spine infection in an in vivo rabbit model. BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology 17:1.
162 Nicola D. Thompson, Lisa LaPlace, Lauren Epstein, Deborah Thompson, Ghinwa Dumyati, Cathleen Concannon, Gail Quinlan, Tory Witten, Linn Warnke, Ruth Lynfield, Meghan Maloney, Richard Melchreit, Nimalie D. Stone. . (2016) Prevalence of Antimicrobial Use and Opportunities to Improve Prescribing Practices in U.S. Nursing Homes. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 17:12, 1151-1153.
163 Vanessa Arriola, Jessica Tischendorf, Jackson Musuuza, Anna Barker, Jeffrey W. Rozelle, Nasia Safdar. . (2016) Assessing the Risk of Hospital-Acquired Clostridium Difficile Infection With Proton Pump Inhibitor Use: A Meta-Analysis. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:12, 1408-1417.
164 Alicia M. Shams, Laura J. Rose, Jonathan R. Edwards, Salvatore Cali, Anthony D. Harris, Jesse T. Jacob, Anna LaFae, Lisa L. Pineles, Kerri A. Thom, L. Clifford McDonald, Matthew J. Arduino, Judith A. Noble-Wang. . (2016) Assessment of the Overall and Multidrug-Resistant Organism Bioburden on Environmental Surfaces in Healthcare Facilities. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:12, 1426-1432.
165 Abigail Cline, Dane Hill, Robin Lewallen, Steven R. Feldman. . (2016) Current status and future prospects for biologic treatments of psoriasis. Expert Review of Clinical Immunology 12:12, 1273-1287.
166 Ankit Agrawal, Jason Mathias, David Baker, Alok Choudhary. . (2016) Five Year Life Expectancy Calculator for Older Adults. 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), 1280-1283.
167 Maya Hites, Guillaume Deprez, Fleur Wolff, Brigitte Ickx, Anita Verleije, Jean Closset, Patrizia Loi, Jessica Prévost, Fabio S. Taccone, Judith Racapé, Frédéric Cotton, Frédérique Jacobs. . (2016) Evaluation of total body weight and body mass index cut-offs for increased cefazolin dose for surgical prophylaxis. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 48:6, 633-640.
168 Holly Yu, Onur Baser, Li Wang. . (2016) Burden of Clostridium difficile-associated disease among patients residing in nursing homes: a population-based cohort study. BMC Geriatrics 16:1.
169 Ashley Pechal, Kevin Lin, Stefan Allen, Kelly Reveles. . (2016) National age group trends in Clostridium difficile infection incidence and health outcomes in United States Community Hospitals. BMC Infectious Diseases 16:1.
170 Chenjie Tang, Lunbiao Cui, Yuqiao Xu, Le Xie, Pengfei Sun, Chengcheng Liu, Wenying Xia, Genyan Liu. . (2016) The incidence and drug resistance of Clostridium difficile infection in Mainland China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports 6:1.
171 Cristina Becerra-Castro, Gonçalo Macedo, Adrian M.T. Silva, Célia M. Manaia, Olga C. Nunes. . (2016) Proteobacteria become predominant during regrowth after water disinfection. Science of The Total Environment 573, 313-323.
172 Jason A. Lee, Nicole Robbins, Jinglin L. Xie, Troy Ketela, Leah E. Cowen, Clarissa Nobile. . (2016) Functional Genomic Analysis of Candida albicans Adherence Reveals a Key Role for the Arp2/3 Complex in Cell Wall Remodelling and Biofilm Formation. PLOS Genetics 12:11, e1006452.
173 E. Peter Magennis, Andrew L. Hook, Paul Williams, Morgan R. Alexander. . (2016) Making Silicone Rubber Highly Resistant to Bacterial Attachment Using Thiol-ene Grafting. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 8:45, 30780-30787.
174 Li-Sheng Wang, Akash Gupta, Bradley Duncan, Rajesh Ramanathan, Mahdieh Yazdani, Vincent M. Rotello. . (2016) Biocidal and Antifouling Chlorinated Protein Films. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering 2:11, 1862-1866.
175 Belinda Chapman, Monica Slavin, Debbie Marriott, Catriona Halliday, Sarah Kidd, Ian Arthur, Narin Bak, Christopher H. Heath, Karina Kennedy, C. Orla Morrissey, Tania C. Sorrell, Sebastian van Hal, Caitlin Keighley, Emma Goeman, Neil Underwood, Krispin Hajkowicz, Ann Hofmeyr, Michael Leung, Nenad Macesic, Jeannie Botes, Christopher Blyth, Louise Cooley, C. Robert George, Pankaja Kalukottege, Alison Kesson, Brendan McMullan, Robert Baird, Jennifer Robson, Tony M. Korman, Stella Pendle, Kerry Weeks, Sharon Chen. . (2016) Changing epidemiology of candidaemia in Australia. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, dkw422.
176 Clare F Heal, Jennifer L Banks, Phoebe D Lepper, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Mieke L van Driel, Clare F Heal. . 2016. Topical antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing by primary intention. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
177 Maha Talaat, Mona El-Shokry, Jehan El-Kholy, Ghada Ismail, Sara Kotb, Soad Hafez, Ehab Attia, Fernanda C. Lessa. . (2016) National surveillance of health care–associated infections in Egypt: Developing a sustainable program in a resource-limited country. American Journal of Infection Control 44:11, 1296-1301.
178 A.R. Ruis, David Williamson Shaffer, Daniel K. Shirley, Nasia Safdar. . (2016) Teaching health care workers to adopt a systems perspective for improved control and prevention of health care–associated infections. American Journal of Infection Control 44:11, 1360-1364.
179 Todd J. Kowalski, Shanu N. Kothari, Michelle A. Mathiason, Andrew J. Borgert. . (2016) Impact of Hair Removal on Surgical Site Infection Rates: A Prospective Randomized Noninferiority Trial. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 223:5, 704-711.
180 Mark E. Rupp, Peg Gilbert, Elizabeth Lyden, Peggy Luebbert. . (2016) Statewide assessment of use of infection prevention techniques and technologies. American Journal of Infection Control 44:11, 1393-1395.
181 David M Faleck, Hojjat Salmasian, E Yoko Furuya, Elaine L Larson, Julian A Abrams, Daniel E Freedberg. . (2016) Proton Pump Inhibitors Do Not Increase Risk for Clostridium difficile Infection in the Intensive Care Unit. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 111:11, 1641-1648.
182 Lisa Zubkoff, Julia Neily, Beth J. King, Mary Ellen Dellefield, Sarah Krein, Yinong Young-Xu, Shoshana Boar, Peter D. Mills. . (2016) Virtual Breakthrough Series, Part 1: Preventing Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection and Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers in the Veterans Health Administration. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 42:11, 485-AP2.
183 Jeffrey J Coleman, Tomomi Komura, Julia Munro, Michael P Wu, Rakhee R Busanelli, Angela N Koehler, Méryl Thomas, Florence F Wagner, Edward B Holson, Eleftherios Mylonakis. . (2016) Activity of caffeic acid phenethyl ester in Caenorhabditis elegans. Future Medicinal Chemistry 8:17, 2033-2046.
184 Rachel I. Adams, Seema Bhangar, Karen C. Dannemiller, Jonathan A. Eisen, Noah Fierer, Jack A. Gilbert, Jessica L. Green, Linsey C. Marr, Shelly L. Miller, Jeffrey A. Siegel, Brent Stephens, Michael S. Waring, Kyle Bibby. . (2016) Ten questions concerning the microbiomes of buildings. Building and Environment 109, 224-234.
185 Hua-ping Huang, Bin Chen, Hai-Yan Wang, Me He. . (2016) The efficacy of daily chlorhexidine bathing for preventing healthcare-associated infections in adult intensive care units. The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine 31:6, 1159-1170.
186 Matteo Bassetti, Maddalena Peghin, Jean-Francois Timsit. . (2016) The current treatment landscape: candidiasis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 71:suppl 2, ii13-ii22.
187 Cameron C. Jones, Steffi Valdeig, Raymond M. Sova, Clifford R. Weiss. . (2016) Inside-out Ultraviolet-C Sterilization of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm In Vitro. Photochemistry and Photobiology 92:6, 835-841.
188 Christopher S. Kovacs, Cynthia Fatica, Robert Butler, Steven M. Gordon, Thomas G. Fraser. . (2016) Hospital-acquired Staphylococcus aureus primary bloodstream infection: A comparison of events that do and do not meet the central line–associated bloodstream infection definition. American Journal of Infection Control 44:11, 1252-1255.
189 Shannon M. Hinsa-Leasure, Queenster Nartey, Justin Vaverka, Michael G. Schmidt. . (2016) Copper alloy surfaces sustain terminal cleaning levels in a rural hospital. American Journal of Infection Control 44:11, e195-e203.
190 (2016) Comparison of susceptibility patterns using commercially available susceptibility testing methods performed on prevalent Candida species. Journal of Medical Microbiology.
191 Nadim Cassir, Jean-Christophe Delarozière, Gregory Dubourg, Marion Delord, Jean-Christophe Lagier, Phillipe Brouqui, Florence Fenollar, Didier Raoult, Pierre Edouard Fournier. . (2016) A Regional Outbreak of Clostridium difficile PCR-Ribotype 027 Infections in Southeastern France from a Single Long-Term Care Facility. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:11, 1337-1341.
192 Gustavo H. Dayan, Naglaa Mohamed, Ingrid L. Scully, David Cooper, Elizabeth Begier, Joseph Eiden, Kathrin U. Jansen, Alejandra Gurtman, Annaliesa S. Anderson. . (2016) Staphylococcus aureus : the current state of disease, pathophysiology and strategies for prevention. Expert Review of Vaccines 15:11, 1373-1392.
193 N. Monteserin, E. Larson. . (2016) Temporal trends and risk factors for healthcare-associated vancomycin-resistant enterococci in adults. Journal of Hospital Infection 94:3, 236-241.
194 Leonard R. Duncan, Jennifer I. Smart, Robert K. Flamm, Helio S. Sader, Ronald N. Jones, Rodrigo E. Mendes. . (2016) Telavancin activity tested against a collection of Staphylococcus aureus isolates causing pneumonia in hospitalized patients in the United States (2013–2014). Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 86:3, 300-302.
195 Alessandro Cassini, Diamantis Plachouras, Tim Eckmanns, Muna Abu Sin, Hans-Peter Blank, Tanja Ducomble, Sebastian Haller, Thomas Harder, Anja Klingeberg, Madlen Sixtensson, Edward Velasco, Bettina Weiß, Piotr Kramarz, Dominique L. Monnet, Mirjam E. Kretzschmar, Carl Suetens, Stephan Harbarth. . (2016) Burden of Six Healthcare-Associated Infections on European Population Health: Estimating Incidence-Based Disability-Adjusted Life Years through a Population Prevalence-Based Modelling Study. PLOS Medicine 13:10, e1002150.
196 Dhammika H. M. L. P. Navarathna, Ruvini U. Pathirana, Michail S. Lionakis, Kenneth W. Nickerson, David D. Roberts, Martine BASSILANA. . (2016) Candida albicans ISW2 Regulates Chlamydospore Suspensor Cell Formation and Virulence In Vivo in a Mouse Model of Disseminated Candidiasis. PLOS ONE 11:10, e0164449.
197 Sahil Khanna, Darrell S. Pardi. . (2016) Clinical implications of antibiotic impact on gastrointestinal microbiota and Clostridium difficile infection. Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 10:10, 1145-1152.
198 Timothy J. Break, Kevin W. Hoffman, Muthulekha Swamydas, Chyi-Chia Richard Lee, Jean K. Lim, Michail S. Lionakis. . (2016) Batf3-dependent CD103 + dendritic cell accumulation is dispensable for mucosal and systemic antifungal host defense. Virulence 7:7, 826-835.
199 Jane Kirk, Anson Kendall, James F. Marx, Ted Pincock, Elizabeth Young, Jillian M. Hughes, Timothy Landers. . (2016) Point of care hand hygiene—where's the rub? A survey of US and Canadian health care workers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices. American Journal of Infection Control 44:10, 1095-1101.
200 S. Khanna, E. Montassier, B. Schmidt, R. Patel, D. Knights, D. S. Pardi, P. C. Kashyap. . (2016) Gut microbiome predictors of treatment response and recurrence in primary Clostridium difficile infection. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 44:7, 715-727.
201 Kathlyn E. Fletcher, Jeanne T. Tyszka, Molly Harrod, Karen E. Fowler, Sanjay Saint, Sarah L. Krein. . (2016) Qualitative validation of the CAUTI Guide to Patient Safety assessment tool. American Journal of Infection Control 44:10, 1102-1109.
202 Maziar M. Nourian. . (2016) The Motor in the Machine: A Lesson in Surgical Processing. Journal of Graduate Medical Education 8:4, 619-619.
203 Damien Keogh, Wei Hong Tay, Yao Yong Ho, Jennifer L. Dale, Siyi Chen, Shivshankar Umashankar, Rohan B.H. Williams, Swaine L. Chen, Gary M. Dunny, Kimberly A. Kline. . (2016) Enterococcal Metabolite Cues Facilitate Interspecies Niche Modulation and Polymicrobial Infection. Cell Host & Microbe 20:4, 493-503.
204 Caná L. Ross, Jennifer K. Spinler, Tor C. Savidge. . (2016) Structural and functional changes within the gut microbiota and susceptibility to Clostridium difficile infection. Anaerobe 41, 37-43.
205 Brad S. Oriel, Qi Chen, Kamal M.F. Itani. . (2016) The impact of surgical hand antisepsis technique on surgical site infection. The American Journal of Surgery.
206 G. Winzor, R.P.D. Cooke. . (2016) Infection prevention and control in the paediatric setting: the challenges. Journal of Hospital Infection 94:2, 157-158.
207 Andrew Gostine, David Gostine, Cristina Donohue, Luke Carlstrom. . (2016) Evaluating the effectiveness of ultraviolet-C lamps for reducing keyboard contamination in the intensive care unit: A longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Infection Control 44:10, 1089-1094.
208 Vic Eton, Liliya Sinyavskaya, Yves Langlois, Jean François Morin, Samy Suissa, Paul Brassard. . (2016) Effect of Pre-Operative Use of Medications on the Risk of Surgical Site Infections in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery. Surgical Infections 17:5, 557-562.
209 Florian Wagenlehner, Zafer Tandogdu, Riccardo Bartoletti, Tommaso Cai, Mete Cek, Ekaterina Kulchavenya, Béla Köves, Kurt Naber, Tamara Perepanova, Peter Tenke, Björn Wullt, Florian Bogenhard, Truls Erik Bjerklund Johansen. . (2016) The Global Prevalence of Infections in Urology (GPUI) Study: A Worldwide Surveillance Study in Urology Patients. European Urology Focus 2:4, 345-347.
210 Mimonah Al Qathrady, Ahmed Helmy, Khalid Almuzaini. . (2016) Infection tracing in smart hospitals. 2016 IEEE 12th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), 1-8.
211 Keita Morikane, Hitoshi Honda, Satowa Suzuki. . (2016) Factors Associated With Surgical Site Infection Following Gastric Surgery in Japan. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:10, 1167-1172.
212 Rishi Parikh, Daniel Pollock, Jyotirmay Sharma, Jonathan Edwards. . (2016) Is There Room for Prevention? Examining the Effect of Outpatient Facility Type on the Risk of Surgical Site Infection. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:10, 1179-1185.
213 Joshua T. Swan, Carol M. Ashton, Lan N. Bui, Vy P. Pham, Beverly A. Shirkey, Jolene E. Blackshear, Jimmy B. Bersamin, Rubie May L. Pomer, Michael L. Johnson, Audrey D. Magtoto, Michelle O. Butler, Shirley K. Tran, Leah R. Sanchez, Jessica G. Patel, Robert A. Ochoa, Shaikh A. Hai, Karen I. Denison, Edward A. Graviss, Nelda P. Wray. . (2016) Effect of Chlorhexidine Bathing Every Other Day on Prevention of Hospital-Acquired Infections in the Surgical ICU. Critical Care Medicine 44:10, 1822-1832.
214 Marin Vincent, Philippe Hartemann, Marc Engels-Deutsch. . (2016) Antimicrobial applications of copper. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 219:7, 585-591.
215 Tara Konicki, Elaine Miller. . (2016) Use of a simulation intervention to examine differences in nursing students' hand hygiene knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors. Nurse Education Today 45, 96-101.
216 Lauren Diegel-Vacek, Catherine Ryan. . (2016) Promoting Hand Hygiene With a Lighting Prompt. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal 10:1, 65-75.
217 Faidad Khan, Xueqing Wu, Gideon L. Matzkin, Mohsin A. Khan, Fuminori Sakai, Jorge E. Vidal. . (2016) Streptococcus pneumoniae Eradicates Preformed Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms through a Mechanism Requiring Physical Contact. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 6.
218 Sarah Tschudin-Sutter, Olivier Braissant, Stefan Erb, Anne Stranden, Gernot Bonkat, Reno Frei, Andreas F. Widmer, Abhishek Deshpande. . (2016) Growth Patterns of Clostridium difficile – Correlations with Strains, Binary Toxin and Disease Severity: A Prospective Cohort Study. PLOS ONE 11:9, e0161711.
219 Marisa Anne D'Angeli, Joe B. Baker, Douglas R. Call, Margaret A. Davis, Kelly J. Kauber, Uma Malhotra, Gregory T. Matsuura, Dale A. Moore, Chris Porter, Paul Pottinger, Virginia Stockwell, Carol Wagner, Ron Wohrle, Jonathan Yoder, Leah Hampson Yoke, Peter Rabinowitz. . (2016) Antimicrobial stewardship through a one health lens. International Journal of Health Governance 21:3, 114-130.
220 Christina M. Papageorge, Gregory D. Kennedy. . (2016) Strategies to Reduce Postoperative Urinary Tract Infections. Advances in Surgery 50:1, 79-91.
221 Salima Sadallah, Laurent Schmied, Ceylan Eken, Hojjatollah Nozad Charoudeh, Francesca Amicarella, Jürg A. Schifferli. . (2016) Platelet-Derived Ectosomes Reduce NK Cell Function. The Journal of Immunology 197:5, 1663-1671.
222 Brittany Andruszko, Elizabeth Dodds Ashley. . (2016) Antifungal Stewardship: an Emerging Practice in Antimicrobial Stewardship. Current Clinical Microbiology Reports 3:3, 111-119.
223 Emily E. Sickbert-Bennett, Lauren M. DiBiase, Tina M. Schade Willis, Eric S. Wolak, David J. Weber, William A. Rutala. . (2016) Reduction of Healthcare-Associated Infections by Exceeding High Compliance with Hand Hygiene Practices. Emerging Infectious Diseases 22:9, 1628-1630.
224 Sorabh Dhar, Evelyn Cook, Mary Oden, Keith S. Kaye. . (2016) Building a Successful Infection Prevention Program. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 30:3, 567-589.
225 Katelyn C. Jelden, Shawn G. Gibbs, Philip W. Smith, Angela L. Hewlett, Peter C. Iwen, Kendra K. Schmid, John J. Lowe. . (2016) Comparison of hospital room surface disinfection using a novel ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) generator. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 13:9, 690-698.
226 Geeta Sood, Trish M. Perl. . (2016) Outbreaks in Health Care Settings. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 30:3, 661-687.
227 Maureen Spencer, Denise Uettwiller-Geiger, Jennifer Sanguinet, Helen Boehm Johnson, Denise Graham. . (2016) Infection preventionists and laboratorians: Case studies on successful collaboration. American Journal of Infection Control 44:9, 964-968.
228 Alexa R. Weingarden, Chi Chen, Ningning Zhang, Carolyn T. Graiziger, Peter I. Dosa, Clifford J. Steer, Megan K. Shaughnessy, James R. Johnson, Michael J. Sadowsky, Alexander Khoruts. . (2016) Ursodeoxycholic Acid Inhibits Clostridium difficile Spore Germination and Vegetative Growth, and Prevents the Recurrence of Ileal Pouchitis Associated With the Infection. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 50:8, 624-630.
229 Fleur E.E. De Vries, Elon D. Wallert, Joseph S. Solomkin, Benedetta Allegranzi, Matthias Egger, E. Patchen Dellinger, Marja A. Boermeester. . (2016) A systematic review and meta-analysis including GRADE qualification of the risk of surgical site infections after prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy compared with conventional dressings in clean and contaminated surgery. Medicine 95:36, e4673.
230 Sherry Glied, Bevin Cohen, Jianfang Liu, Matthew Neidell, Elaine Larson. . (2016) Trends in mortality, length of stay, and hospital charges associated with health care–associated infections, 2006-2012. American Journal of Infection Control 44:9, 983-989.
231 M.S. Kumar, A.P. Das. . (2016) Molecular identification of multi drug resistant bacteria from urinary tract infected urine samples. Microbial Pathogenesis 98, 37-44.
232 Julius Pochhammer, Marie-Pascale Weller, Michael Schäffer. . (2016) Polihexanide for prevention of Wound Infection in Surgery. Is the contact time essential? POLIS-trial: A historic controlled, clinical pilot trial. Wound Medicine 14, 19-24.
233 Christopher P. Stefan, Jeffrey W. Koehler, Timothy D. Minogue. . (2016) Targeted next-generation sequencing for the detection of ciprofloxacin resistance markers using molecular inversion probes. Scientific Reports 6:1.
234 Katja Dralle Mjos, Elena Polishchuk, Michael J. Abrams, Chris Orvig. . (2016) Synthesis, characterization, and evaluation of the antimicrobial potential of copper(II) coordination complexes with quinolone and p -xylenyl-linked quinolone ligands. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 162, 280-285.
235 Paula King, Long K. Pham, Shannon Waltz, Dan Sphar, Robert T. Yamamoto, Douglas Conrad, Randy Taplitz, Francesca Torriani, R. Allyn Forsyth, Yung-Fu Chang. . (2016) Longitudinal Metagenomic Analysis of Hospital Air Identifies Clinically Relevant Microbes. PLOS ONE 11:8, e0160124.
236 Gabriela Tirado-Conte, Afonso B. Freitas-Ferraz, Luis Nombela-Franco, Pilar Jimenez-Quevedo, Corina Biagioni, Ana Cuadrado, Ivan Nuñez-Gil, Pablo Salinas, Nieves Gonzalo, Carlos Ferrera, David Vivas, Javier Higueras, Ana Viana-Tejedor, Maria Jose Perez-Vizcayno, Isidre Vilacosta, Javier Escaned, Antonio Fernandez-Ortiz, Carlos Macaya. . (2016) Incidence, Causes, and Impact of In-Hospital Infections After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. The American Journal of Cardiology 118:3, 403-409.
237 Panayiotis D. Ziakas, Nina Joyce, Ioannis M. Zacharioudakis, Fainareti N. Zervou, Richard W. Besdine, Vincent Mor, Eleftherios Mylonakis. . (2016) Prevalence and impact of Clostridium difficile infection in elderly residents of long-term care facilities, 2011. Medicine 95:31, e4187.
238 Joany van Balen, Lyndsay Bottichio, Kurt Stevenson, Shu-Hua Wang, Rocio Nava-Hoet, Armando E. Hoet. . (2016) Understanding the introduction and circulation of environmental methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a large academic medical center during a nonoutbreak, year-long period. American Journal of Infection Control 44:8, 925-930.
239 Jennifer L. Brower. . (2016) The Threat and Response to Infectious Diseases (Revised). Microbial Ecology.
240 Salma Abbas, Sangeeta Sastry. . (2016) Chlorhexidine: Patient Bathing and Infection Prevention. Current Infectious Disease Reports 18:8.
241 Jennifer K. Spinler, Aaron Brown, Caná L. Ross, Prapaporn Boonma, Margaret E. Conner, Tor C. Savidge. . (2016) Administration of probiotic kefir to mice with Clostridium difficile infection exacerbates disease. Anaerobe 40, 54-57.
242 Moinuddin Hassan, Elizabeth Gonzalez, Victoria Hitchins, Ilko Ilev. . (2016) Detecting bacteria contamination on medical device surfaces using an integrated fiber-optic mid-infrared spectroscopy sensing method. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 231, 646-654.
243 Danir Fanisovich Bayramov, Jennifer Ann Neff. . (2016) Beyond conventional antibiotics — New directions for combination products to combat biofilm. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews.
244 Bernardo Cánovas-Segura, Manuel Campos, Antonio Morales, Jose M. Juarez, Francisco Palacios. . (2016) Development of a clinical decision support system for antibiotic management in a hospital environment. Progress in Artificial Intelligence 5:3, 181-197.
245 David J. Weber, Hajime Kanamori, William A. Rutala. . (2016) ‘No touch’ technologies for environmental decontamination. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 29:4, 424-431.
246 Sahil Khanna, Arjun Gupta, Larry M. Baddour, Darrell S. Pardi. . (2016) Epidemiology, outcomes, and predictors of mortality in hospitalized adults with Clostridium difficile infection. Internal and Emergency Medicine 11:5, 657-665.
247 E. Patchen Dellinger. . (2016) Prevention of Hospital-Acquired Infections. Surgical Infections 17:4, 422-426.
248 Ehsan S. Mousavi, Kevin R. Grosskopf. . (2016) Secondary exposure risks to patients in an airborne isolation room: Implications for anteroom design. Building and Environment 104, 131-137.
249 Luis J. Bastarrachea, Julie M. Goddard. . (2016) Self-healing antimicrobial polymer coating with efficacy in the presence of organic matter. Applied Surface Science 378, 479-488.
250 Edward Septimus, Jason Hickok, Julia Moody, Ken Kleinman, Taliser R. Avery, Susan S. Huang, Richard Platt, Jonathan Perlin. . (2016) Closing the Translation Gap: Toolkit-based Implementation of Universal Decolonization in Adult Intensive Care Units Reduces Central Line–associated Bloodstream Infections in 95 Community Hospitals. Clinical Infectious Diseases 63:2, 172-177.
251 Dora J. Melber, Arianne Teherani, Brian S. Schwartz. . (2016) A Comprehensive Survey of Preclinical Microbiology Curricula Among US Medical Schools. Clinical Infectious Diseases 63:2, 164-168.
252 Jeffrey C. Hageman, Carmen Hazim, Katie Wilson, Paul Malpiedi, Neil Gupta, Sarah Bennett, Amy Kolwaite, Abbigail Tumpey, Kristin Brinsley-Rainisch, Bryan Christensen, Carolyn Gould, Angela Fisher, Michael Jhung, Douglas Hamilton, Kerri Moran, Lisa Delaney, Chad Dowell, Michael Bell, Arjun Srinivasan, Melissa Schaefer, Ryan Fagan, Nedghie Adrien, Nora Chea, Benjamin J. Park. . (2016) Infection Prevention and Control for Ebola in Health Care Settings — West Africa and United States. MMWR Supplements 65:3, 50-56.
253 Fariha H. Ramay, Anthony Amoroso, Erik C. von Rosenvinge, Kapil Saharia. . (2016) Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Treatment of Severe, Recurrent, and Refractory Clostridium difficile Infection in a Severely Immunocompromised Patient. Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice 24:4, 237-240.
254 Hiroshi Morioka, Aki Hirabayashi, Mitsutaka Iguchi, Yuka Tomita, Daizo Kato, Naokazu Sato, Miyuki Hyodo, Naoko Kawamura, Takuya Sadomoto, Kazuya Ichikawa, Takayuki Inagaki, Yoshiaki Kato, Yuichi Kouyama, Yoshinori Ito, Tetsuya Yagi. . (2016) The first point prevalence survey of health care–associated infection and antimicrobial use in a Japanese university hospital: A pilot study. American Journal of Infection Control 44:7, e119-e123.
255 Jae Hyun Shin, Kevin P. High, Cirle A. Warren. . (2016) Older Is Not Wiser, Immunologically Speaking: Effect of Aging on Host Response to Clostridium difficile Infections. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 71:7, 916-922.
256 Aaron C. Miller, Linnea A. Polgreen, Joseph E. Cavanaugh, Philip M. Polgreen. . (2016) Hospital Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) incidence as a risk factor for hospital-associated CDI. American Journal of Infection Control 44:7, 825-829.
257 J. Francois Eid. . (2016) Penile Implant: Review of a “No-Touch” Technique. Sexual Medicine Reviews 4:3, 294-300.
258 Edward van Opstal, Glynis L. Kolling, John H. Moore, Christine M. Coquery, Nekeithia S. Wade, William M. Loo, David T. Bolick, Jae Hyun Shin, Loren D. Erickson, Cirle A. Warren. . (2016) Vancomycin Treatment Alters Humoral Immunity and Intestinal Microbiota in an Aged Mouse Model of Clostridium difficile Infection. Journal of Infectious Diseases 214:1, 130-139.
259 Zafer Tandogdu, Truls E. Bjerklund Johansen, Riccardo Bartoletti, Florian Wagenlehner. . (2016) Management of the Urologic Sepsis Syndrome. European Urology Supplements 15:4, 102-111.
260 Lindsey M. Weiner, Scott K. Fridkin, Zuleika Aponte-Torres, Lacey Avery, Nicole Coffin, Margaret A. Dudeck, Jonathan R. Edwards, John A. Jernigan, Rebecca Konnor, Minn M. Soe, Kelly Peterson, L. Clifford McDonald. . (2016) Vital Signs: Preventing Antibiotic-Resistant Infections in Hospitals - United States, 2014. American Journal of Transplantation 16:7, 2224-2230.
261 Tania N. Bubb, Corrianne Billings, Dorine Berriel-Cass, William Bridges, Lisa Caffery, Jennifer Cox, Moraima Rodriguez, Jessica Swanson, Maureen Titus-Hinson. . (2016) APIC professional and practice standards. American Journal of Infection Control 44:7, 745-749.
262 Paula Regina Luna de Araújo Jácome, Agenor Tavares Jácome-Júnior, Lílian Rodrigues Alves, Maria Jesuíta Bezerra da Silva, Jailton Lobo da Costa Lima, Ana Catarina S. Lopes, Paulo Sérgio Ramos Araújo, Maria Amélia Vieira Maciel. . (2016) Detection of bla SPM-1, bla KPC, bla TEM and bla CTX-M genes in isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp. and Klebsiella spp. from cancer patients with healthcare-associated infections. Journal of Medical Microbiology 65:7, 658-665.
263 Elizabeth Cerceo, Steven B. Deitelzweig, Bradley M. Sherman, Alpesh N. Amin. . (2016) Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections in the Hospital Setting: Overview, Implications for Clinical Practice, and Emerging Treatment Options. Microbial Drug Resistance 22:5, 412-431.
264 Patricia Geddie, Victoria Wochna Loerzel, Anne Norris. . (2016) Family Caregiver Knowledge, Patient Illness Characteristics, and Unplanned Hospital Admissions in Older Adults With Cancer. Oncology Nursing Forum 43:4, 453-463.
265 Jessica M. Stempel, Dimitrios Farmakiotis, Jeffrey J. Tarrand, Dimitrios P. Kontoyiannis. . (2016) Time-to-reporting of blood culture positivity and central venous catheter-associated Candida glabrata fungemia in cancer patients. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 85:3, 391-393.
266 H. R. MARTÍNEZ-MOREL, J. SANCHEZ-PAYÁ, P. GARCÍA-SHIMIZU, J. L. MENDOZA-GARCÍA, I. TENZA-IGLESIAS, J. C. RODRÍGUEZ-DÍAZ, E. MERINO-DE-LUCAS, A. NOLASCO. . (2016) Effectiveness of a programme to reduce the burden of catheter-related bloodstream infections in a tertiary hospital. Epidemiology and Infection 144:09, 2011-2017.
267 Areeba Kara, Cynthia S. Johnson, Michelle Murray, Jill Dillon, Siu L. Hui. . (2016) Can the identification of an idle line facilitate its removal? A comparison between a proposed guideline and clinical practice. Journal of Hospital Medicine 11:7, 489-493.
268 Chunlu Gao, Jing Tong, Kaijiang Yu, Zhidan Sun, Ran An, Zhimin Du. . (2016) Pharmacokinetics of cefoperazone/sulbactam in critically ill patients receiving continuous venovenous hemofiltration. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 72:7, 823-830.
269 J.Y. Liu, Y.H. Wu, M. Cai, C.L. Zhou. . (2016) Point-prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections in Beijing, China: a survey and analysis in 2014. Journal of Hospital Infection 93:3, 271-279.
270 Kristen V. Dicks, Eric Lofgren, Sarah S. Lewis, Rebekah W. Moehring, Daniel J. Sexton, Deverick J. Anderson. . (2016) A Multicenter Pragmatic Interrupted Time Series Analysis of Chlorhexidine Gluconate Bathing in Community Hospital Intensive Care Units. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:07, 791-797.
271 Isaac See, Julia Chang, Nicole Gualandi, Genevieve L. Buser, Pamela Rohrbach, Debra A. Smeltz, Mary Jo Bellush, Susan E. Coffin, Jane M. Gould, Debra Hess, Patricia Hennessey, Sydney Hubbard, Andrea Kiernan, Judith O’Donnell, David A. Pegues, Jeffrey R. Miller, Shelley S. Magill. . (2016) Clinical Correlates of Surveillance Events Detected by National Healthcare Safety Network Pneumonia and Lower Respiratory Infection Definitions—Pennsylvania, 2011–2012. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:07, 818-824.
272 Michael Klompas. . (2016) Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia in Nonventilated Patients: The Next Frontier. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:07, 825-826.
273 Jeremy T. Affolter, W. Charles Huskins, Michele Moss, Evelyn M. Kuhn, Rainer Gedeit, Thomas B. Rice. . (2016) The Association of Central-Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections With Central-Line Utilization Rate and Maintenance Bundle Compliance Among Types of PICUs*. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 17:7, 591-597.
274 Brooke A. Schlappe, Jennifer J. Mueller, Oliver Zivanovic, Ginger J. Gardner, Kara Long Roche, Yukio Sonoda, Dennis S. Chi, Roisin E. O'Cearbhaill. . (2016) Cited rationale for variance in the use of primary intraperitoneal chemotherapy following optimal cytoreduction for stage III ovarian carcinoma at a high intraperitoneal chemotherapy utilization center. Gynecologic Oncology 142:1, 13-18.
275 Christopher Duncan, Scott O. Trerotola. . (2016) Outcomes of a Percutaneous Technique for Shortening of Totally Implanted Indwelling Central Venous Chest Port Catheters. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology 27:7, 1034-1037.
276 Bas G.J. Surewaard, Justin F. Deniset, Franz J. Zemp, Matthias Amrein, Michael Otto, John Conly, Abdelwahab Omri, Robin M. Yates, Paul Kubes. . (2016) Identification and treatment of the Staphylococcus aureus reservoir in vivo. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 213:7, 1141-1151.
277 Gi Byoung Hwang, Elaine Allan, Ivan P. Parkin. . (2016) White Light-Activated Antimicrobial Paint using Crystal Violet. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 8:24, 15033-15039.
278 Sharon R Lewis, Andrew R Butler, David JW Evans, Phil Alderson, Andrew F Smith, Sharon R Lewis. . 2016. Chlorhexidine bathing of the critically ill for the prevention of hospital-acquired infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
279 Alexandra S. Simões, Isabel Couto, Cristina Toscano, Elsa Gonçalves, Pedro Póvoa, Miguel Viveiros, Luís V. Lapão. . (2016) Prevention and Control of Antimicrobial Resistant Healthcare-Associated Infections: The Microbiology Laboratory Rocks!. Frontiers in Microbiology 7.
280 Maria Pardos de la Gandara, Marie Curry, Judith Berger, David Burstein, Phyllis Della-Latta, Virgina Kopetz, John Quale, Eric Spitzer, Rexie Tan, Carl Urban, Guiqing Wang, Susan Whittier, Herminia de Lencastre, Alexander Tomasz, Paul J Planet. . (2016) MRSA Causing Infections in Hospitals in Greater Metropolitan New York: Major Shift in the Dominant Clonal Type between 1996 and 2014. PLOS ONE 11:6, e0156924.
281 Christos A. Grigoras, Fainareti N. Zervou, Ioannis M. Zacharioudakis, Constantinos I. Siettos, Eleftherios Mylonakis, Abhishek Deshpande. . (2016) Isolation of C. difficile Carriers Alone and as Part of a Bundle Approach for the Prevention of Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI): A Mathematical Model Based on Clinical Study Data. PLOS ONE 11:6, e0156577.
282 Saint, Sanjay, Greene, M. Todd, Krein, Sarah L., Rogers, Mary A.M., Ratz, David, Fowler, Karen E., Edson, Barbara S., Watson, Sam R., Meyer-Lucas, Barbara, Masuga, Marie, Faulkner, Kelly, Gould, Carolyn V., Battles, James, Fakih, Mohamad G., . . (2016) A Program to Prevent Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection in Acute Care. New England Journal of Medicine 374:22, 2111-2119.
283 Quanhathai Kaewpoowat, Nagakrishnal Nachimuthu, Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner. . (2016) Fungal Diagnostics: A Practical Approach. Current Clinical Microbiology Reports 3:2, 103-110.
284 Amelia K. Sofjan, Rachel J. Musgrove, Kevin W. Garey. . (2016) Impact of New Diagnostic Approaches for Invasive Candidiasis on Antifungal Stewardship. Current Fungal Infection Reports 10:2, 68-77.
285 James W. Arbogast, Laura Moore-Schiltz, William R. Jarvis, Amanda Harpster-Hagen, Jillian Hughes, Albert Parker. . (2016) Impact of a Comprehensive Workplace Hand Hygiene Program on Employer Health Care Insurance Claims and Costs, Absenteeism, and Employee Perceptions and Practices. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 58:6, e231-e240.
286 Tolulope A. Oyetunji, Dani O. Gonzalez, Katherine W. Gonzalez, Benedict C. Nwomeh, Shawn D. St. Peter. . (2016) Wound classification in pediatric surgical procedures: Measured and found wanting. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 51:6, 1014-1016.
287 Priya Sampathkumar, Jean Wentink Barth, Maureen Johnson, Nick Marosek, Maren Johnson, Wendy Worden, Jill Lembke, Heather Twing, Tamara Buechler, Sarah Dhanorker, Danielle Keigley, Rodney Thompson. . (2016) Mayo Clinic Reduces Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections Through a Bundled 6-C Approach. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 42:6, 254-AP4.
288 Nancy Fu, Titus Wong. . (2016) Clostridium difficile Infection in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Current Infectious Disease Reports 18:6.
289 Nikola Nestorov, Peter Hughes, Nuala Healy, Niall Sheehy, Neil OHare. . (2016) Application of Natural User Interface Devices for Touch-Free Control of Radiological Images During Surgery. 2016 IEEE 29th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS), 229-234.
290 Scott D. Kobayashi, Adeline R. Porter, David W. Dorward, Amanda J. Brinkworth, Liang Chen, Barry N. Kreiswirth, Frank R. DeLeo. . (2016) Phagocytosis and Killing of Carbapenem-Resistant ST258 Klebsiella pneumoniae by Human Neutrophils. Journal of Infectious Diseases 213:10, 1615-1622.
291 Dusan Licina, Seema Bhangar, Brandon Brooks, Robyn Baker, Brian Firek, Xiaochen Tang, Michael J. Morowitz, Jillian F. Banfield, William W. Nazaroff, Jeffrey Shaman. . (2016) Concentrations and Sources of Airborne Particles in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. PLOS ONE 11:5, e0154991.
292 Lynne V. McFarland. . (2016) Therapies on the horizon for Clostridium difficile infections. Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs 25:5, 541-555.
293 Floris Imhann, Marc Jan Bonder, Arnau Vich Vila, Jingyuan Fu, Zlatan Mujagic, Lisa Vork, Ettje F Tigchelaar, Soesma A Jankipersadsing, Maria Carmen Cenit, Hermie J M Harmsen, Gerard Dijkstra, Lude Franke, Ramnik J Xavier, Daisy Jonkers, Cisca Wijmenga, Rinse K Weersma, Alexandra Zhernakova. . (2016) Proton pump inhibitors affect the gut microbiome. Gut 65:5, 740-748.
294 David J. Weber, Stephanie A. Consoli, William A. Rutala. . (2016) Occupational health risks associated with the use of germicides in health care. American Journal of Infection Control 44:5, e85-e89.
295 Sunmoo Yoon, Bevin Cohen, Kenrick D. Cato, Jianfang Liu, Elaine L. Larson. . (2016) Visualization of Data Regarding Infections Using Eye Tracking Techniques. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 48:3, 244-253.
296 Tammy A. Beyfus, Nancy L. Dawson, Cynthia H. Danner, Bhupendra Rawal, Paul E. Gruber, Steven P. Petrou. . (2016) The use of passive visual stimuli to enhance compliance with handwashing in a perioperative setting. American Journal of Infection Control 44:5, 496-499.
297 Amy L. Pakyz, Leticia R. Moczygemba, Lynn M. VanderWielen, Michael B. Edmond. . (2016) Fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: The patient experience. American Journal of Infection Control 44:5, 554-559.
298 Isaiah R. Turnbull, Sarbani Ghosh, Anja Fuchs, Julia Hilliard, Christopher G. Davis, Grant V. Bochicchio, Robert E. Southard. . (2016) Polytrauma Increases Susceptibility to Pseudomonas Pneumonia in Mature Mice. SHOCK 45:5, 555-563.
299 Afif N. Kulaylat, Brett W. Engbrecht, Dorothy V. Rocourt, John M. Rinaldi, Mary C. Santos, Robert E. Cilley, Christopher S. Hollenbeak, Peter W. Dillon. . (2016) Measuring Surgical Site Infections in Children: Comparing Clinical, Electronic, and Administrative Data. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 222:5, 823-830.
300 Jessica P. Ridgway, Xiaowu Sun, Ying P. Tabak, Richard S. Johannes, Ari Robicsek. . (2016) Performance characteristics and associated outcomes for an automated surveillance tool for bloodstream infection. American Journal of Infection Control 44:5, 567-571.
301 Brett G. Mitchell, Oyebola Fasugba, Wendy Beckingham, Noleen Bennett, Anne Gardner. . (2016) A point prevalence study of healthcare associated urinary tract infections in Australian acute and aged care facilities. Infection, Disease & Health 21:1, 26-31.
302 David J. Weber, William A. Rutala, Deverick J. Anderson, Luke F. Chen, Emily E. Sickbert-Bennett, John M. Boyce. . (2016) Effectiveness of ultraviolet devices and hydrogen peroxide systems for terminal room decontamination: Focus on clinical trials. American Journal of Infection Control 44:5, e77-e84.
303 B.G. Mitchell, J.K. Ferguson, M. Anderson, J. Sear, A. Barnett. . (2016) Length of stay and mortality associated with healthcare-associated urinary tract infections: a multi-state model. Journal of Hospital Infection 93:1, 92-99.
304 S. VALLABHANENI, O. ALMENDARES, M. M. FARLEY, J. RENO, Z. T. SMITH, B. STEIN, S. S. MAGILL, R. M. SMITH, A. A. CLEVELAND, F. C. LESSA. . (2016) Epidemiology and factors associated with candidaemia following Clostridium difficile infection in adults within metropolitan Atlanta, 2009–2013. Epidemiology and Infection 144:07, 1440-1444.
305 Stefano Di Bella, Paolo Ascenzi, Steven Siarakas, Nicola Petrosillo, Alessandra di Masi. . (2016) Clostridium difficile Toxins A and B: Insights into Pathogenic Properties and Extraintestinal Effects. Toxins 8:5, 134.
306 Liang Qin Liu, Sinead Mehigan. . (2016) The Effects of Surgical Hand Scrubbing Protocols on Skin Integrity and Surgical Site Infection Rates: A Systematic Review. AORN Journal 103:5, 468-482.
307 Nicole Bézay, Andrea Ayad, Katrin Dubischar, Christa Firbas, Romana Hochreiter, Sigrid Kiermayr, István Kiss, Fritz Pinl, Bernd Jilma, Kerstin Westritschnig. . (2016) Safety, immunogenicity and dose response of VLA84, a new vaccine candidate against Clostridium difficile, in healthy volunteers. Vaccine 34:23, 2585-2592.
308 Jackson S. Musuuza, Anna Barker, Caitlyn Ngam, Lia Vellardita, Nasia Safdar. . (2016) Assessment of Fidelity in Interventions to Improve Hand Hygiene of Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:05, 567-575.
309 Anthony D. Harris, Sarah S. Jackson, Gwen Robinson, Lisa Pineles, Surbhi Leekha, Kerri A. Thom, Yuan Wang, Michelle Doll, Melinda M. Pettigrew, J. Kristie Johnson. . (2016) Pseudomonas aeruginosa Colonization in the Intensive Care Unit: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Clinical Outcomes. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:05, 544-548.
310 David K. Warren, Martin Prager, Satish Munigala, Meghan A. Wallace, Colleen R. Kennedy, Kerry M. Bommarito, John E. Mazuski, Carey-Ann D. Burnham. . (2016) Prevalence of qacA/B Genes and Mupirocin Resistance Among Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Isolates in the Setting of Chlorhexidine Bathing Without Mupirocin. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:05, 590-597.
311 Melinda M. Pettigrew, J. Kristie Johnson, Anthony D. Harris. . (2016) The human microbiota: novel targets for hospital-acquired infections and antibiotic resistance. Annals of Epidemiology 26:5, 342-347.
312 Arjun Gupta, Darrell S Pardi, Larry M Baddour, Sahil Khanna. . (2016) Outcomes in children with Clostridium difficile infection: results from a nationwide survey. Gastroenterology Report, gow007.
313 Federico Perez, Nadim G. El Chakhtoura, Krisztina M. Papp-Wallace, Brigid M. Wilson, Robert A. Bonomo. . (2016) Treatment options for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae : can we apply “precision medicine” to antimicrobial chemotherapy?. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 17:6, 761-781.
314 Tamegnon Victorien Dougnon, Honore Sourou Bankole, Roch Christian Johnson, Gildas Hounmanou, Idarath Moussa Toure, Christelle Houessou, Michel Boko, Lamine Baba-Moussa. . (2016) Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections at a Hospital in Zinvie, Benin (West Africa). International Journal of Infection 3:2.
315 Sarah K. Hilton, Eduardo Castro-Nallar, Marcos Pérez-Losada, Ian Toma, Timothy A. McCaffrey, Eric P. Hoffman, Marc O. Siegel, Gary L. Simon, W. Evan Johnson, Keith A. Crandall. . (2016) Metataxonomic and Metagenomic Approaches vs. Culture-Based Techniques for Clinical Pathology. Frontiers in Microbiology 7.
316 Matteo Bassetti, Elda Righi, Alessia Carnelutti. . (2016) Bloodstream infections in the Intensive Care Unit. Virulence 7:3, 267-279.
317 Kelly M. Fulton, Jeffrey C. Smith, Susan M. Twine. . (2016) Clinical applications of bacterial glycoproteins. Expert Review of Proteomics 13:4, 345-353.
318 Sydne Muratore, Catherine Statz, J.J. Glover, Mary Kwaan, Greg Beilman. . (2016) Risk Adjustment for Determining Surgical Site Infection in Colon Surgery: Are All Models Created Equal?. Surgical Infections 17:2, 173-178.
319 Hilary Barnes, Jessica Rearden, Matthew D. McHugh. . (2016) Magnet® Hospital Recognition Linked to Lower Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection Rates. Research in Nursing & Health 39:2, 96-104.
320 Sarah Stanley, Frank Scholle, Jiadeng Zhu, Yao Lu, Xiangwu Zhang, Xingci Situ, Reza Ghiladi. . (2016) Photosensitizer-Embedded Polyacrylonitrile Nanofibers as Antimicrobial Non-Woven Textile. Nanomaterials 6:4, 77.
321 Jonathan L. Drew, Joseph Turner, Joshua Mugele, Greg Hasty, Taylor Duncan, Rebekah Zaiser, Dylan Cooper. . (2016) Beating the Spread. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare 11:2, 100-105.
322 Kathleen A. Quan, Sarah M. Cousins, Darlene D. Porter, Margaret O'Brien, Scott Rudkin, Brian Lambertson, Dennis Hoang, Amish A. Dangodara, Susan S. Huang. . (2016) Electronic health record solutions to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infections by enhancing documentation of central line insertion practices, line days, and daily line necessity. American Journal of Infection Control 44:4, 438-443.
323 H.J. Gómez-Vallejo, B. Uriel-Latorre, M. Sande-Meijide, B. Villamarín-Bello, R. Pavón, F. Fdez-Riverola, D. Glez-Peña. . (2016) A case-based reasoning system for aiding detection and classification of nosocomial infections. Decision Support Systems 84, 104-116.
324 Michelle Hughes, Taha Qazi, Adam Berg, Janice Weinberg, Xinhua Chen, Ciaran P. Kelly, Francis A. Farraye. . (2016) Host Immune Response to Clostridium difficile Infection in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 22:4, 853-861.
325 Sarah Santos Gonçalves, Ana Carolina Remondi Souza, Anuradha Chowdhary, Jacques F. Meis, Arnaldo Lopes Colombo. . (2016) Epidemiology and molecular mechanisms of antifungal resistance in Candida and Aspergillus. Mycoses 59:4, 198-219.
326 Chanunya Srihawan, Rodrigo Lopez Castelblanco, Lucrecia Salazar, Susan H. Wootton, Elizabeth Aguilera, Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner, David I. Sandberg, HuiMahn A. Choi, Kiwon Lee, Ryan Kitigawa, Nitin Tandon, Rodrigo Hasbun. . (2016) Clinical Characteristics and Predictors of Adverse Outcome in Adult and Pediatric Patients With Healthcare-Associated Ventriculitis and Meningitis. Open Forum Infectious Diseases 3:2, ofw077.
327 Jennifer R. Lyden, E. Patchen Dellinger. . (2016) Surgical Site Infections. Hospital Medicine Clinics 5:2, 319-333.
328 Sarah B. Klieger, Julie C. Fitzgerald, Scott L. Weiss, Fran Balamuth, Eva Teszner, Julia S. Sammons, Susan E. Coffin. . (2016) Pediatric Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Associated with Healthcare-Associated Infections. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:04, 483-485.
329 Meghan A. Baker, Susan S. Huang, Alyssa R. Letourneau, Rebecca E. Kaganov, Jennifer R. Peeples, Marci Drees, Richard Platt, Deborah S. Yokoe. . (2016) Lack of Comprehensive Outbreak Detection in Hospitals. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:04, 466-468.
330 Lindsay Croft, James Ladd, Michelle Doll, Daniel J. Morgan. . (2016) Inappropriate Antibiotic Use and Gastric Acid Suppression Preceding Clostridium difficile Infection. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:04, 494-495.
331 E.P. Magennis, A.L. Hook, M.C. Davies, C. Alexander, P. Williams, M.R. Alexander. . (2016) Engineering serendipity: High-throughput discovery of materials that resist bacterial attachment. Acta Biomaterialia 34, 84-92.
332 Claudio Marcassa, Massimo Pistono, Renato Maserati, Andrea Giordano, Pantaleo Giannuzzi. . (2016) Disability after cardiac surgery is the major predictor of infections occurring in the rehabilitation phase. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 23:6, 584-592.
333 Lindsey M. Weiner, Scott K. Fridkin, Zuleika Aponte-Torres, Lacey Avery, Nicole Coffin, Margaret A. Dudeck, Jonathan R. Edwards, John A. Jernigan, Rebecca Konnor, Minn M. Soe, Kelly Peterson, L. Clifford McDonald. . (2016) Vital Signs: Preventing Antibiotic-Resistant Infections in Hospitals — United States, 2014. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 65:9, 235-241.
334 Lindsey M. Weiner, Scott K. Fridkin, Zuleika Aponte-Torres, Lacey Avery, Nicole Coffin, Margaret A. Dudeck, Jonathan R. Edwards, John A. Jernigan, Rebecca Konnor, Minn M. Soe, Kelly Peterson, L. Clifford McDonald. . (2016) Vital Signs: Preventing Antibiotic-Resistant Infections in Hospitals — United States, 2014. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 65:9.
335 Ephraim L. Tsalik, Yanhong Li, Lori L. Hudson, Vivian H. Chu, Tiffany Himmel, Alex T. Limkakeng, Jason N. Katz, Seth W. Glickman, Micah T. McClain, Karen E. Welty-Wolf, Vance G. Fowler, Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, Christopher W. Woods, Shelby D. Reed. . (2016) Potential Cost-effectiveness of Early Identification of Hospital-acquired Infection in Critically Ill Patients. Annals of the American Thoracic Society 13:3, 401-413.
336 Pedro G. Vianna, Charles R. Dale, Sarah Simmons, Mark Stibich, Carmelo M. Licitra. . (2016) Impact of pulsed xenon ultraviolet light on hospital-acquired infection rates in a community hospital. American Journal of Infection Control 44:3, 299-303.
337 Stephen J. Knaus, Lindsay Saum, Emily Cochard, Wesley Prichard, Brian Skinner, Ryan Medas. . (2016) Impact of Evidence-Based Guidelines on Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With Clostridium difficile Infection. Southern Medical Journal 109:3, 144-150.
338 David P. Calfee. . (2016) Editorial Commentary : Considering Universal Mupirocin Decolonization as an Option for Preventing Surgical Site Infections. Clinical Infectious Diseases 62:5, 637-639.
339 Florian Wagenlehner, Zafer Tandogdu, Riccardo Bartoletti, Tommaso Cai, Mete Cek, Ekaterina Kulchavenya, Béla Köves, Kurt Naber, Tamara Perepanova, Peter Tenke, Björn Wullt, Florian Bogenhard, Truls Johansen. . (2016) The Global Prevalence of Infections in Urology Study: A Long-Term, Worldwide Surveillance Study on Urological Infections. Pathogens 5:1, 10.
340 Nathaniel L.R. Rhodes, Martin de la Presa, Mitchell D. Barneck, Ahrash Poursaid, Matthew A. Firpo, John T. Langell. . (2016) Violet 405 nm light: A novel therapeutic agent against β-lactam-resistant Escherichia coli. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine 48:3, 311-317.
341 Rachel E. Thompson, Elizabeth K. Broussard, David R. Flum, Brent E. Wisse. . (2016) Perioperative Glycemic Control During Colorectal Surgery. Current Diabetes Reports 16:3.
342 Z. Kassam, C. Cribb Fabersunne, M. B. Smith, E. J. Alm, G. G. Kaplan, G. C. Nguyen, A. N. Ananthakrishnan. . (2016) Clostridium difficile associated risk of death score (CARDS): a novel severity score to predict mortality among hospitalised patients with C. difficile infection. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 43:6, 725-733.
343 M. Todd Greene, Sanjay Saint. . (2016) Followership characteristics among infection preventionists in U.S. hospitals: Results of a national survey. American Journal of Infection Control 44:3, 343-345.
344 Todd P. McCarty, Peter G. Pappas. . (2016) Invasive Candidiasis. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 30:1, 103-124.
345 Matthew Taylor, Bruce McCollister, Daewon Park. . (2016) Highly Bactericidal Polyurethane Effective Against Both Normal and Drug-Resistant Bacteria: Potential Use as an Air Filter Coating. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 178:5, 1053-1067.
346 Linnea K. Ista, Qian Yu, Anand Parthasarathy, Kirk S. Schanze, Gabriel P. López. . (2016) Reusable nanoengineered surfaces for bacterial recruitment and decontamination. Biointerphases 11:1, 019003.
347 Katherine A. Auger, Emily L. Mueller, Steven H. Weinberg, Catherine S. Forster, Anita Shah, Christine Wolski, Grant Mussman, Anna J. Ipsaro, Matthew M. Davis. . (2016) A Validated Method for Identifying Unplanned Pediatric Readmission. The Journal of Pediatrics 170, 105-112.e2.
348 Haruhisa Fukuda, Manabu Kuroki. . (2016) The Development of Statistical Models for Predicting Surgical Site Infections in Japan: Toward a Statistical Model–Based Standardized Infection Ratio. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:03, 260-271.
349 Larry K. Kociolek, Dale N. Gerding. . (2016) Breakthroughs in the treatment and prevention of Clostridium difficile infection. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 13:3, 150-160.
350 Erik R. Dubberke, Margaret A. Olsen, Dustin Stwalley, Ciarán P. Kelly, Dale N. Gerding, Yinong Young-Xu, Cedric Mahé, Abhishek Deshpande. . (2016) Identification of Medicare Recipients at Highest Risk for Clostridium difficile Infection in the US by Population Attributable Risk Analysis. PLOS ONE 11:2, e0146822.
351 A. Smith, L.R. Taggart, G. Lebovic, N. Zeynalova, A. Khan, M.P. Muller. . (2016) Clostridium difficile infection incidence: impact of audit and feedback programme to improve room cleaning. Journal of Hospital Infection 92:2, 161-166.
352 José Millán Oñate-Gutiérrez, María Virginia Villegas, Adriana Correa. . (2016) Prevalencia y factores relacionados con la infección por Clostridium difficile en un centro hospitalario de alta complejidad en Cali (Colombia). Infectio.
353 David Padua, Charalabos Pothoulakis. . (2016) Novel approaches to treating Clostridium difficile -associated colitis. Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 10:2, 193-204.
354 Patrizia Spigaglia, Fabrizio Barbanti, Matteo Morandi, Maria Luisa Moro, Paola Mastrantonio. . (2016) Diagnostic testing for Clostridium difficile in Italian microbiological laboratories. Anaerobe 37, 29-33.
355 Karen Jones, Jehad Sibai, Rebecca Battjes, Mohamad G. Fakih. . (2016) How and when nurses collect urine cultures on catheterized patients: A survey of 5 hospitals. American Journal of Infection Control 44:2, 173-176.
356 Zafer Tandogdu, Florian M.E. Wagenlehner. . (2016) Global epidemiology of urinary tract infections. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 29:1, 73-79.
357 Maged Muhammed, Marios Arvanitis, Eleftherios Mylonakis. . (2016) Whole animal HTS of small molecules for antifungal compounds. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 11:2, 177-184.
358 S. Alex Rottgers, Liliana Camison, Rick Mai, Sameer Shakir, Lorelei Grunwaldt, Andrew J. Nowalk, Megan Natali, Joseph E. Losee. . (2016) Antibiotic Use in Primary Palatoplasty. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 137:2, 574-582.
359 Evelyn Alvarez, Daniel Z. Uslan, Timothy Malloy, Peter Sinsheimer, Hilary Godwin. . (2016) It is time to revise our approach to registering antimicrobial agents for health care settings. American Journal of Infection Control 44:2, 228-232.
360 Meghan M. Cirulis, Mitchell T. Hamele, Chris R. Stockmann, Tellen D. Bennett, Susan L. Bratton. . (2016) Comparison of the New Adult Ventilator-Associated Event Criteria to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Pediatric Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Definition (PNU2) in a Population of Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Patients*. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 17:2, 157-164.
361 Jeremy L. Warner, Peijin Zhang, Jenny Liu, Gil Alterovitz. . (2016) Classification of hospital acquired complications using temporal clinical information from a large electronic health record. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 59, 209-217.
362 Aida Pitarch, César Nombela, Concha Gil. . (2016) Seroprofiling at the Candida albicans protein species level unveils an accurate molecular discriminator for candidemia. Journal of Proteomics 134, 144-162.
363 Vu Dinh Phu, Heiman F. L. Wertheim, Mattias Larsson, Behzad Nadjm, Quynh-Dao Dinh, Lennart E. Nilsson, Ulf Rydell, Tuyet Thi Diem Le, Son Hong Trinh, Hung Minh Pham, Cang Thanh Tran, Hanh Thi Hong Doan, Nguyen Thua Tran, Nhan Duc Le, Nhuan Van Huynh, Thao Phuong Tran, Bao Duc Tran, Son Truong Nguyen, Thao Thi Ngoc Pham, Tam Quang Dang, Chau Van Vinh Nguyen, Yen Minh Lam, Guy Thwaites, Kinh Van Nguyen, Hakan Hanberger, Cristina Costa. . (2016) Burden of Hospital Acquired Infections and Antimicrobial Use in Vietnamese Adult Intensive Care Units. PLOS ONE 11:1, e0147544.
364 André Mario Doi, Antonio Carlos Campos Pignatari, Michael B. Edmond, Alexandre Rodrigues Marra, Luis Fernando Aranha Camargo, Ricardo Andreotti Siqueira, Vivian Pereira da Mota, Arnaldo Lopes Colombo, Anuradha Chowdhary. . (2016) Epidemiology and Microbiologic Characterization of Nosocomial Candidemia from a Brazilian National Surveillance Program. PLOS ONE 11:1, e0146909.
365 M. Swamydas, J.-L. Gao, T. J. Break, M. D. Johnson, M. Jaeger, C. A. Rodriguez, J. K. Lim, N. M. Green, A. L. Collar, B. G. Fischer, C.-C. R. Lee, J. R. Perfect, B. D. Alexander, B.-J. Kullberg, M. G. Netea, P. M. Murphy, M. S. Lionakis. . (2016) CXCR1-mediated neutrophil degranulation and fungal killing promote Candida clearance and host survival. Science Translational Medicine 8:322, 322ra10-322ra10.
366 Anthony O. Gaca, Michael S. Gilmore. . (2016) Killing of VRE Enterococcus faecalis by commensal strains: Evidence for evolution and accumulation of mobile elements in the absence of competition. Gut Microbes 7:1, 90-96.
367 Nathaniel D. Bastian, Hyojung Kang, Harriet B. Nembhard, Andrew Bloschichak, Paul M. Griffin. . (2016) The Impact of a Pay-for-Performance Program on Central Line–Associated Blood Stream Infections in Pennsylvania. Hospital Topics 94:1, 8-14.
368 Michael A Pfaller, Donna M Wolk, Thomas J Lowery. . (2016) T2MR and T2Candida: novel technology for the rapid diagnosis of candidemia and invasive candidiasis. Future Microbiology 11:1, 103-117.
369 Joshua W. Leung, Derek Croote, Anubhav Tripathi, Stephanie L. Angione, Leonard A. Mermel. . (2016) Single fluorophore melting curve analysis for detection of hypervirulent Clostridium difficile. Journal of Medical Microbiology 65:1, 62-70.
370 Keiji Okinaka. . (2016) Candidemia in Cancer Patients: Focus Mainly on Hematological Malignancyand Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. Medical Mycology Journal 57:3, J117-J123.
371 EunGyeong Kim, Ihnsook Jeong, Shakuntala Thanju. . (2016) Knowledge, Attitude, and Compliance of Healthcare-associated Infection Control among Nurses in the Western Development Region, Nepal. Korean Journal of Nosocomial Infection Control 21:1, 9.
372 Andrew P. Alvarez, Alysen L. Demzik, Hasham M. Alvi, Kevin D. Hardt, David W. Manning. . (2016) Risk Factors for Postoperative Urinary Tract Infections in Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty. Advances in Orthopedics 2016, 1-5.
373 M.J. Pucci, C. Callebaut, A. Cathcart, K. Bush. . 2016. Recent Epidemiological Changes in Infectious Diseases. Reference Module in Chemistry, Molecular Sciences and Chemical Engineering.
374 Sofie M van Dorp, Pete Kinross, Petra Gastmeier, Michael Behnke, Axel Kola, Michel Delmée, Anastasia Pavelkovich, Silja Mentula, Frédéric Barbut, Agnes Hajdu, André Ingebretsen, Hanna Pituch, Ioana S Macovei, Milica Jovanović, Camilla Wiuff, Daniela Schmid, Katharina EP Olsen, Mark H Wilcox, Carl Suetens, Ed J Kuijper. . (2016) Standardised surveillance ofClostridium difficileinfection in European acute care hospitals: a pilot study, 2013. Eurosurveillance 21:29.
375 Reuben Olaniyi, Clarissa Pozzi, Luca Grimaldi, Fabio Bagnoli. . 2016. Staphylococcus aureus-Associated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: Anatomical Localization, Epidemiology, Therapy and Potential Prophylaxis. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology.
376 Bruce W. Clements, Julie Ann P. Casani. . 2016. Emerging and Reemerging Infectious Disease Threats. Disasters and Public Health, 245-265.
377 Bhavarth S. Shukla, Samuel Shelburne, Katherine Reyes, Mini Kamboj, Jessica D. Lewis, Sandra L. Rincon, Jinnethe Reyes, Lina P. Carvajal, Diana Panesso, Costi D. Sifri, Marcus J. Zervos, Eric G. Pamer, Truc T. Tran, Javier Adachi, Jose M. Munita, Rodrigo Hasbun, Cesar A. Arias. . (2016) Influence of Minimum Inhibitory Concentration in Clinical Outcomes ofEnterococcus faeciumBacteremia Treated With Daptomycin: Is it Time to Change the Breakpoint?. Clinical Infectious Diseases 62:12, 1514.
378 Abdalla Khalil, Musaad Qurash, Asem Saleh, Rasha Ali, Mohamed Elwakil. . (2016) Multiple Renal Abscesses due to ESBL Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia coli Causing Acute Pyelonephritis and Bacteremia: A Case Report with a Good Outcome (No Drainage Required). Case Reports in Infectious Diseases 2016, 1-4.
379 Sirijan Santajit, Nitaya Indrawattana. . (2016) Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance in ESKAPE Pathogens. BioMed Research International 2016, 1-8.
380 Ying P. Tabak, Richard S. Johannes, Xiaowu Sun, Cynthia T. Crosby, William R. Jarvis. . (2016) Innovative Use of Existing Public and Private Data Sources for Postmarketing Surveillance of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections Associated With Intravenous Needleless Connectors. Journal of Infusion Nursing 39:5, 328-335.
381 Suhas Ramesh, Marcelo Grijalva, Alexis Debut, Beatriz G. de la Torre, Fernando Albericio, Luis H. Cumbal. . (2016) Peptides conjugated to silver nanoparticles in biomedicine – a “value-added” phenomenon. Biomater. Sci. 4:12, 1713-1725.
382 Arash Shaban-Nejad, Hiroshi Mamiya, Alexandre Riazanov, Alan J. Forster, Christopher J. O. Baker, Robyn Tamblyn, David L. Buckeridge. . (2016) From Cues to Nudge: A Knowledge-Based Framework for Surveillance of Healthcare-Associated Infections. Journal of Medical Systems 40:1.
383 Florian Wagenlehner. . (2016) Antibiotic Resistance and Novel Antibiotics for the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections. Urogenital Tract Infection 11:2, 43.
384 Adam C. Sheka, Sarah Tevis, Gregory D. Kennedy. . (2016) Urinary tract infection after surgery for colorectal malignancy: risk factors and complications. The American Journal of Surgery 211:1, 31-39.
385 K. Zycinska, M. Chmielewska, B. Lenartowicz, M. Hadzik-Blaszczyk, M. Cieplak, Z. Kur, R. Krupa, K.A. Wardyn. . 2016. Antibiotic Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with Pneumonia Complicated by Clostridium Difficile Infection. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology.
386 Rayo Morfin-Otero, Elvira Garza-Gonzalez, Sara A. Aguirre-Diaz, Rodrigo Escobedo-Sanchez, Sergio Esparza-Ahumada, Hector R. Perez-Gomez, Santiago Petersen-Morfin, Esteban Gonzalez-Diaz, Adrian Martinez-Melendez, Eduardo Rodriguez-Noriega. . (2016) Clostridium difficile outbreak caused by NAP1/BI/027 strain and non-027 strains in a Mexican hospital. The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases 20:1, 8-13.
387 K. Zycinska, M. Chmielewska, B. Lenartowicz, M. Hadzik-Blaszczyk, M. Cieplak, Z. Kur, R. Krupa, K. A. Wardyn. . 2016. Antibiotic Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with Pneumonia Complicated by Clostridium Difficile Infection. Advancements in Clinical Research, 59-64.
388 Raquel Moure, Ángeles Cañizares, María Muíño, Margarita Lobato, Ana Fernández, María Rodríguez, Ma José Gude, Maria Tomás, Germán Bou. . (2016) Use of the cobas 4800 system for the rapid detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Microbiological Methods 120, 50-52.
389 Julie Ann Smith. . 2016. Perioperative Infection Control. Head, Neck, and Orofacial Infections, 438-451.
390 P.L. Phillips, R.D. Wolcott, L.J. Cowan, G.S. Schultz. . 2016. Biofilms in wounds and wound dressing. Wound Healing Biomaterials, 55-78.
391 Mehdi El Arbi, Karim Jalléli, Fatma Trigui, Pascal Pigeon, Meral Görmen, Siden Top, Sami Aifa, Ismail Fliss, Gérard Jaouen, Riadh Hammami. . (2016) Efficacy of a novel ferrocenyl diaryl butene citrate compound as a biocide for preventing healthcare-associated infections. Med. Chem. Commun. 7:5, 948-954.
392 Maurice Y. Nahabedian. . (2016) Discussion. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 137:1, 106-107.
393 Susan S Huang, Edward Septimus, Mary K Hayden, Ken Kleinman, Jessica Sturtevant, Taliser R Avery, Julia Moody, Jason Hickok, Julie Lankiewicz, Adrijana Gombosev, Rebecca E Kaganov, Katherine Haffenreffer, John A Jernigan, Jonathan B Perlin, Richard Platt, Robert A Weinstein. . (2016) Effect of body surface decolonisation on bacteriuria and candiduria in intensive care units: an analysis of a cluster-randomised trial. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 16:1, 70-79.
394 Sandra Yang, Briana B. Rider, Avi Baehr, Aaron R. Ducoffe, Dale J. Hu. . (2016) Racial and ethnic disparities in health care–associated Clostridium difficile infections in the United States: State of the science. American Journal of Infection Control 44:1, 91-96.
395 Dominiek Staelens, Sayuan Liang, Bernard Appeltans, Marlies Van de Wouwer, Guy Van den Mooter, Gert Van Assche, Uwe Himmelreich, Greetje Vande Velde. . (2016) Visualization of delayed release of compounds from pH-sensitive capsules in vitro and in vivo in a hamster model. Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging 11:1, 24-31.
396 Rachel Park, Thomas F. O’Brien, Susan S. Huang, Meghan A. Baker, Deborah S. Yokoe, Martin Kulldorff, Craig Barrett, Jamie Swift, John Stelling. . (2016) Statistical detection of geographic clusters of resistantEscherichia coliin a regional network with WHONET and SaTScan. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 14:11, 1097.
397 Kimberly Raines, Kelsey Rosen. . (2016) The Effect of Chlorhexidine Bathing on Rates of Nosocomial Infections Among the Critically Ill Population. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing 35:2, 84-91.
398 B.J. Ridenhour, E.M. Top. . 2016. Plasmid Driven Evolution of Bacteria. Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology, 301-306.
399 M.P. Muller, C. MacDougall, M. Lim, I. Armstrong, A. Bialachowski, S. Callery, W. Ciccotelli, M. Cividino, J. Dennis, S. Hota, G. Garber, J. Johnstone, K. Katz, A. McGeer, V. Nankoosingh, C. Richard, M. Vearncombe. . (2016) Antimicrobial surfaces to prevent healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review. Journal of Hospital Infection 92:1, 7-13.
400 Vaidehi Nayar, Andrea Kennedy, Janine Pappas, Krista D. Atchley, Cynthia Field, Sarah Smathers, Eva E. Teszner, Julia S. Sammons, Susan E. Coffin, Jeffrey S. Gerber, Thomas L. Spray, James M. Steven, Louis M. Bell, Joan Forrer, Fernando Gonzalez, Albert Chi, William J. Nieczpiel, John N. Martin, J. William Gaynor. . (2016) Improving Cardiac Surgical Site Infection Reporting and Prevention By Using Registry Data for Case Ascertainment. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 101:1, 190-199.
401 (2016) Key approaches to nosocomial infection control. Asian Biomedicine.
402 Ankit Agrawal, Alok Choudhary. . 2016. Health Services Data: Big Data Analytics for Deriving Predictive Healthcare Insights. Data and Measures in Health Services Research, 1-17.
403 Theodoros Kelesidis, Nikolay Braykov, Daniel Z. Uslan, Daniel J. Morgan, Sumanth Gandra, Birgir Johannsson, Marin L. Schweizer, Scott A. Weisenberg, Heather Young, Joseph Cantey, Eli Perencevich, Edward Septimus, Arjun Srinivasan, Ramanan Laxminarayan. . (2016) Indications and Types of Antibiotic Agents Used in 6 Acute Care Hospitals, 2009–2010: A Pragmatic Retrospective Observational Study. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 37:01, 70-79.
404 Jennifer C. Hunter, Yi Mu, Ghinwa K. Dumyati, Monica M. Farley, Lisa G. Winston, Helen L. Johnston, James I. Meek, Rebecca Perlmutter, Stacy M. Holzbauer, Zintars G. Beldavs, Erin C. Phipps, John R. Dunn, Jessica A. Cohen, Johannetsy Avillan, Nimalie D. Stone, Dale N. Gerding, L. Clifford McDonald, Fernanda C. Lessa. . (2016) Burden of Nursing Home-Onset Clostridium difficile Infection in the United States: Estimates of Incidence and Patient Outcomes. Open Forum Infectious Diseases 3:1.
405 Clarissa Pozzi, Reuben Olaniyi, Lassi Liljeroos, Ilaria Galgani, Rino Rappuoli, Fabio Bagnoli. . 2016. Vaccines for Staphylococcus aureus and Target Populations. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology.
406 Shahram Shafaei, Daniel Van Opdenbosch, Tobias Fey, Marcus Koch, Tobias Kraus, Josef Peter Guggenbichler, Cordt Zollfrank. . (2016) Enhancement of the antimicrobial properties of orthorhombic molybdenum trioxide by thermal induced fracturing of the hydrates. Materials Science and Engineering: C 58, 1064-1070.
407 Jussara Aparecida Souza do Nascimento Rodrigues, Renata Eloah de Lucena Ferretti-Rebustini, Vanessa de Brito Poveda, , . . (2016) Surgical site infection in patients submitted to heart transplantation. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem 24:0.
408 Rebecca A. Drummond, Amanda L. Collar, Muthulekha Swamydas, Carlos A. Rodriguez, Jean K. Lim, Laura M. Mendez, Danielle L. Fink, Amy P. Hsu, Bing Zhai, Hatice Karauzum, Constantinos M. Mikelis, Stacey R. Rose, Elise M. N. Ferre, Lynne Yockey, Kimberly Lemberg, Hye Sun Kuehn, Sergio D. Rosenzweig, Xin Lin, Prashant Chittiboina, Sandip K. Datta, Thomas H. Belhorn, Eric T. Weimer, Michelle L. Hernandez, Tobias M. Hohl, Douglas B. Kuhns, Michail S. Lionakis, Robin Charles May. . (2015) CARD9-Dependent Neutrophil Recruitment Protects against Fungal Invasion of the Central Nervous System. PLOS Pathogens 11:12, e1005293.
409 Peter G. Pappas, Carol A. Kauffman, David R. Andes, Cornelius J. Clancy, Kieren A. Marr, Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner, Annette C. Reboli, Mindy G. Schuster, Jose A. Vazquez, Thomas J. Walsh, Theoklis E. Zaoutis, Jack D. Sobel. . (2015) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical Infectious Diseases, civ933.
410 Ivan M. Ngai, Anne Van Arsdale, Shravya Govindappagari, Nancy E. Judge, Nicole K. Neto, Jeffrey Bernstein, Peter S. Bernstein, David J. Garry. . (2015) Skin Preparation for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection After Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 126:6, 1251-1257.
411 Manoj Kumar, Sanjay Jain, Neetu Shree, Mukesh Sharma. . (2015) Incidence rate of multidrug-resistant organisms in a tertiary care hospital, North Delhi. Apollo Medicine 12:4, 248-256.
412 Bruce E Hirsch, Nimit Saraiya, Kaitlin Poeth, Rebecca M Schwartz, Marcia E Epstein, Gerard Honig. . (2015) Effectiveness of fecal-derived microbiota transfer using orally administered capsules for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. BMC Infectious Diseases 15:1.
413 Kyle A. Floyd, Adam E. Meyer, George Nelson, Maria Hadjifrangiskou. . (2015) The yin-yang driving urinary tract infection and how proteomics can enhance research, diagnostics, and treatment. PROTEOMICS - Clinical Applications 9:11-12, 990-1002.
414 Colby L. Parks, Kristopher M. Schroeder, Richard E. Galgon. . (2015) Personal hand gel for improved hand hygiene compliance on the regional anesthesia team. Journal of Anesthesia 29:6, 899-903.
415 Kim M. Levenhagen, Tamra Keeney. . (2015) Achieving a National Patient Safety Goal. Journal of Acute Care Physical Therapy 6:3, 79-86.
416 Matteo Bassetti, Tobias Welte, Richard G. Wunderink. . (2015) Treatment of Gram-negative pneumonia in the critical care setting: is the beta-lactam antibiotic backbone broken beyond repair?. Critical Care 20:1.
417 Holly Wong, Katherine Eso, Ada Ip, Jessica Jones, Yoojin Kwon, Susan Powelson, Jill de Grood, Rose Geransar, Maria Santana, A. Mark Joffe, Geoffrey Taylor, Bayan Missaghi, Craig Pearce, William A. Ghali, John Conly. . (2015) Use of ward closure to control outbreaks among hospitalized patients in acute care settings: a systematic review. Systematic Reviews 4:1.
418 Snigdha Vallabhaneni, Angela A. Cleveland, Monica M. Farley, Lee H. Harrison, William Schaffner, Zintar G. Beldavs, Gordana Derado, Cau D. Pham, Shawn R. Lockhart, Rachel M. Smith. . (2015) Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Echinocandin Nonsusceptible Candida glabrata Bloodstream Infections: Data From a Large Multisite Population-Based Candidemia Surveillance Program, 2008–2014. Open Forum Infectious Diseases 2:4, ofv163.
419 Aude Teillant, Sumanth Gandra, Devra Barter, Daniel J Morgan, Ramanan Laxminarayan. . (2015) Potential burden of antibiotic resistance on surgery and cancer chemotherapy antibiotic prophylaxis in the USA: a literature review and modelling study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 15:12, 1429-1437.
420 Andrej Spec, Yuichiro Shindo, Carey-Ann D. Burnham, Strother Wilson, Enyo A. Ablordeppey, Evan R. Beiter, Katherine Chang, Anne M. Drewry, Richard S. Hotchkiss. . (2015) T cells from patients with Candida sepsis display a suppressive immunophenotype. Critical Care 20:1.
421 Minn M. Soe, Carolyn V. Gould, Daniel Pollock, Jonathan Edwards. . (2015) Targeted Assessment for Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections: A New Prioritization Metric. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:12, 1379-1384.
422 Kristen V. Dicks, Arthur W. Baker, Michael J. Durkin, Deverick J. Anderson, Rebekah W. Moehring, Luke F. Chen, Daniel J. Sexton, David J. Weber, Sarah S. Lewis. . (2015) Short Operative Duration and Surgical Site Infection Risk in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Procedures. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:12, 1431-1436.
423 Lilian Machado Torres, Ruth Natália Teresa Turrini, Miriam Aparecida Barbosa Merighi, Arménio Guardado Cruz, , , , , . . (2015) Readmission from orthopedic surgical site infections: an integrative review. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP 49:6, 1004-1011.
424 Adoracion Pegalajar-Jurado, Kathryn A. Wold, Jessica M. Joslin, Bella H. Neufeld, Kristin A. Arabea, Lucas A. Suazo, Stephen L. McDaniel, Richard A. Bowen, Melissa M. Reynolds. . (2015) Reprint of: Nitric oxide-releasing polysaccharide derivative exhibits 8-log reduction against Escherichia coli , Acinetobacter baumannii and Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Controlled Release 220, 617-623.
425 Casandra Lyons, Nicole Raustad, Mario A. Bustos, Michael Shiaris, Willem van Schaik. . (2015) Incidence of Type II CRISPR1-Cas Systems in Enterococcus Is Species-Dependent. PLOS ONE 10:11, e0143544.
426 J. P. Donnelly, H. E. Wang, J. E. Locke, R. B. Mannon, M. M. Safford, J. W. Baddley. . (2015) Hospital-Onset Clostridium difficile Infection Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients. American Journal of Transplantation 15:11, 2970-2977.
427 James Baggs, Kimberly Yousey-Hindes, Elizabeth Dodds Ashley, James Meek, Ghinwa Dumyati, Jessica Cohen, Matthew E. Wise, L. Clifford McDonald, Fernanda C. Lessa. . (2015) Identification of population at risk for future Clostridium difficile infection following hospital discharge to be targeted for vaccine trials. Vaccine 33:46, 6241-6249.
428 (2015) Vital Signs: Estimated Effects of a Coordinated Approach for Action to Reduce Antibiotic-Resistant Infections in Health Care Facilities - United States. American Journal of Transplantation 15:11, 3002-3007.
429 Edward M. Drozd, Timothy J. Inocencio, Shamonda Braithwaite, Dayo Jagun, Hemal Shah, Nicole C. Quon, Kelly C. Broderick, Joseph L. Kuti. . (2015) Mortality, Hospital Costs, Payments, and Readmissions Associated With Clostridium difficile Infection Among Medicare Beneficiaries. Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice 23:6, 318-323.
430 Julia Y. Co, Thomas Crouzier, Katharina Ribbeck. . (2015) Probing the Role of Mucin-Bound Glycans in Bacterial Repulsion by Mucin Coatings. Advanced Materials Interfaces 2:17, 1500179.
431 Carrie Arnold. . (2015) Outbreak Breakthrough: Using Whole-Genome Sequencing to Control Hospital Infection. Environmental Health Perspectives 123:11.
432 M. Cloutier, D. Mantovani, F. Rosei. . (2015) Antibacterial Coatings: Challenges, Perspectives, and Opportunities. Trends in Biotechnology 33:11, 637-652.
433 Terri Townsend, Pamela Anderson. . (2015) Decreasing the risk of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Nursing Critical Care 10:6, 36-41.
434 Vanessa Perez, Kristina D. Mena, Heather N. Watson, R. Burt Prater, John L. McIntyre. . (2015) Evaluation and quantitative microbial risk assessment of a unique antimicrobial agent for hospital surface treatment. American Journal of Infection Control 43:11, 1201-1207.
435 Carolyn V. Gould, Thomas M. File, L. Clifford McDonald. . (2015) Causes, Burden, and Prevention of Clostridium difficile Infection. Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice 23:6, 281-288.
436 X. Liu, X. Duan, J. Xu, Q. Jin, F. Chen, P. Wang, Y. Yang, X. Tang. . (2015) Impact of intra-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy on organ/space surgical site infection in patients with gastric cancer. Journal of Hospital Infection 91:3, 237-243.
437 Sarah Tschudin-Sutter, Karen C. Carroll, Pranita D. Tamma, Madeleine L. Sudekum, Reno Frei, Andreas F. Widmer, Brandon C. Ellis, John Bartlett, Trish M. Perl. . (2015) Impact of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile Colonization on the Risk of Subsequent C. difficile Infection in Intensive Care Unit Patients. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:11, 1324-1329.
438 Seungwon Lee, Priya Prasad, Matthew Lin, Susan Garritson, Amy Nichols, Catherine Liu. . (2015) Ertapenem Prophylaxis Associated With an Increased Risk of Clostridium difficile Infection Among Surgical Patients. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:11, 1351-1354.
439 Adoracion Pegalajar-Jurado, Kathryn A. Wold, Jessica M. Joslin, Bella H. Neufeld, Kristin A. Arabea, Lucas A. Suazo, Stephen L. McDaniel, Richard A. Bowen, Melissa M. Reynolds. . (2015) Nitric oxide-releasing polysaccharide derivative exhibits 8-log reduction against Escherichia coli , Acinetobacter baumannii and Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Controlled Release 217, 228-234.
440 Xiaojie Chen, Dandan Hou, Lu Wang, Qian Zhang, Jiahan Zou, Gang Sun. . (2015) Antibacterial Surgical Silk Sutures Using a High-Performance Slow-Release Carrier Coating System. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 7:40, 22394-22403.
441 Kullberg, Bart JanArendrup, Maiken C.. (2015) Invasive Candidiasis. New England Journal of Medicine 373:15, 1445-1456.
442 Matthias Steglich, Andreas Nitsche, Lutz von Müller, Mathias Herrmann, Thomas A. Kohl, Stefan Niemann, Ulrich Nübel, Abhishek Deshpande. . (2015) Tracing the Spread of Clostridium difficile Ribotype 027 in Germany Based on Bacterial Genome Sequences. PLOS ONE 10:10, e0139811.
443 Zuli Zhang, Jun Duan. . (2015) Nosocomial pneumonia in non-invasive ventilation patients: incidence, characteristics, and outcomes. Journal of Hospital Infection 91:2, 153-157.
444 Patricia W Stone, Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz, Julie Reagan, Jacqueline A Merrill, Brad Sperber, Catherine Cairns, Matthew Penn, Tara Ramanathan, Elizabeth Mothershed, Elizabeth Skillen. . (2015) Impact of laws aimed at healthcare-associated infection reduction: a qualitative study. BMJ Quality & Safety 24:10, 637-644.
445 Maureen Spencer, Sue Barnes, Jorge Parada, Scott Brown, Luci Perri, Denise Uettwiller-Geiger, Helen Boehm Johnson, Denise Graham. . (2015) A primer on on-demand polymerase chain reaction technology. American Journal of Infection Control 43:10, 1102-1108.
446 S. P. Costello, M. A. Conlon, M. S. Vuaran, I. C. Roberts-Thomson, J. M. Andrews. . (2015) Faecal microbiota transplant for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection using long-term frozen stool is effective: clinical efficacy and bacterial viability data. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 42:8, 1011-1018.
447 Hajime Kanamori, David J. Weber, Lauren M. DiBiase, Emily E. Sickbert-Bennett, Rebecca Brooks, Lisa Teal, David Williams, Elizabeth M. Walters, William A. Rutala. . (2015) Longitudinal Trends in All Healthcare-Associated Infections through Comprehensive Hospital-wide Surveillance and Infection Control Measures over the Past 12 Years: Substantial Burden of Healthcare-Associated Infections Outside of Intensive Care Units and “Other” Types of Infection. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:10, 1139-1147.
448 Kristy Weinshel, Angela Dramowski, Ágnes Hajdu, Saul Jacob, Basudha Khanal, Maszárovics Zoltán, Katerina Mougkou, Chimanjita Phukan, Maria Inés Staneloni, Nalini Singh. . (2015) Gap Analysis of Infection Control Practices in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:10, 1208-1214.
449 Amilcar F. Cardona, Samuel E. Wilson. . (2015) Skin and Soft-Tissue Infections: A Critical Review and the Role of Telavancin in Their Treatment. Clinical Infectious Diseases 61:suppl 2, S69-S78.
450 Silvia Caballero, Rebecca Carter, Xu Ke, Bože Sušac, Ingrid M. Leiner, Grace J. Kim, Liza Miller, Lilan Ling, Katia Manova, Eric G. Pamer, Andreas J Baumler. . (2015) Distinct but Spatially Overlapping Intestinal Niches for Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium and Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. PLOS Pathogens 11:9, e1005132.
451 J. Musau, A. Baumann, C. Kolotylo, T. O'Shea, A. Bialachowski. . (2015) Infectious disease outbreaks and increased complexity of care. International Nursing Review 62:3, 404-411.
452 Mary R. Mulcare, Tony Rosen, Sunday Clark, Kartik Viswanathan, Jaime Lynn Hayes, Michael E. Stern, Neal E. Flomenbaum, Kennon Heard. . (2015) A Novel Clinical Protocol for Placement and Management of Indwelling Urinary Catheters in Older Adults in the Emergency Department. Academic Emergency Medicine 22:9, 1056-1066.
453 Shelley S. Magill, Ghinwa Dumyati, Susan M. Ray, Scott K. Fridkin. . (2015) Evaluating Epidemiology and Improving Surveillance of Infections Associated with Health Care, United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases 21:9, 1537-1542.
454 Julia S. Sammons, Philip Toltzis. . (2015) Pitfalls in Diagnosis of Pediatric Clostridium difficile Infection. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 29:3, 465-476.
455 Harold W. Horowitz. . (2015) Infection control: Public reporting, disincentives, and bad behavior. American Journal of Infection Control 43:9, 989-991.
456 Daniel J. Morgan, Surbhi Leekha, Lindsay Croft, Carey-Ann D. Burnham, J. Kristie Johnson, Lisa Pineles, Anthony D. Harris, Erik R. Dubberke. . (2015) The Importance of Colonization with Clostridium difficile on Infection and Transmission. Current Infectious Disease Reports 17:9.
457 James L. Hadler, Richard N. Danila, Paul R. Cieslak, James I. Meek, William Schaffner, Kirk E. Smith, Matthew L. Cartter, Lee H. Harrison, Duc J. Vugia, Ruth Lynfield. . (2015) Emerging Infections Program—State Health Department Perspective. Emerging Infectious Diseases 21:9, 1510-1515.
458 Nina N. Semsarzadeh, Kashyap K. Tadisina, John Maddox, Karan Chopra, Devinder P. Singh. . (2015) Closed Incision Negative-Pressure Therapy Is Associated with Decreased Surgical-Site Infections. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 136:3, 592-602.
459 C. Thongprayoon, W. Cheungpasitporn, P. Phatharacharukul, P. J. Edmonds, Q. Kaewpoowat, P. Mahaparn, J. Bruminhent, S. B. Erickson. . (2015) Chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease are risk factors for poor outcomes of Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Clinical Practice 69:9, 998-1006.
460 Carolyn Sipes, Joy Don Baker. . (2015) Technology in the OR: AORN Members’ Perceptions of the Effects on Workflow Efficiency and Quality Patient Care. AORN Journal 102:3, 289.e1-289.e19.
461 H. Hu, K. Johani, I.B. Gosbell, A.S.W. Jacombs, A. Almatroudi, G.S. Whiteley, A.K. Deva, S. Jensen, K. Vickery. . (2015) Intensive care unit environmental surfaces are contaminated by multidrug-resistant bacteria in biofilms: combined results of conventional culture, pyrosequencing, scanning electron microscopy, and confocal laser microscopy. Journal of Hospital Infection 91:1, 35-44.
462 Christine Greene, Gayathri Vadlamudi, Marisa Eisenberg, Betsy Foxman, James Koopman, Chuanwu Xi. . (2015) Fomite-fingerpad transfer efficiency (pick-up and deposit) of Acinetobacter baumannii—with and without a latex glove. American Journal of Infection Control 43:9, 928-934.
463 Deborah Horwitz, Tyler McCue, Abigail C. Mapes, Nadim J. Ajami, Joseph F. Petrosino, Robert F. Ramig, Barbara W. Trautner. . (2015) Decreased microbiota diversity associated with urinary tract infection in a trial of bacterial interference. Journal of Infection 71:3, 358-367.
464 Chunhui Li, Sidi Liu, Pengcheng Zhou, Juping Duan, Qingya Dou, Rui Zhang, Hong Chen, Ying Cheng, Anhua Wu. . (2015) Emergence of a Novel Binary Toxin–Positive Strain of Clostridium difficile Associated With Severe Diarrhea That Was Not Ribotype 027 and 078 in China. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:09, 1112-1114.
465 Lindsay D. Croft, Anthony D. Harris, Lisa Pineles, Patricia Langenberg, Michelle Shardell, Jeffrey C. Fink, Linda Simoni-Wastila, Daniel J. Morgan. . (2015) The Effect of Universal Glove and Gown Use on Adverse Events in Intensive Care Unit Patients. Clinical Infectious Diseases 61:4, 545-553.
466 Bradley L. Carpenter, Frank Scholle, Hasan Sadeghifar, Aaron J. Francis, Jonathan Boltersdorf, Walter W. Weare, Dimitris S. Argyropoulos, Paul A. Maggard, Reza A. Ghiladi. . (2015) Synthesis, Characterization, and Antimicrobial Efficacy of Photomicrobicidal Cellulose Paper. Biomacromolecules 16:8, 2482-2492.
467 Rachel B. Slayton, Damon Toth, Bruce Y. Lee, Windy Tanner, Sarah M. Bartsch, Karim Khader, Kim Wong, Kevin Brown, James A. McKinnell, William Ray, Loren G. Miller, Michael Rubin, Diane S. Kim, Fred Adler, Chenghua Cao, Lacey Avery, Nathan T.B. Stone, Alexander Kallen, Matthew Samore, Susan S. Huang, Scott Fridkin, John A. Jernigan. . (2015) Vital Signs: Estimated Effects of a Coordinated Approach for Action to Reduce Antibiotic-Resistant Infections in Health Care Facilities — United States. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 64:30, 826-831.
468 Jesmond Dalli, Nan Chiang, Charles N Serhan. . (2015) Elucidation of novel 13-series resolvins that increase with atorvastatin and clear infections. Nature Medicine 21:9, 1071-1075.
469 Federico Perez, Maria Virginia Villegas. . (2015) The role of surveillance systems in confronting the global crisis of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 28:4, 375-383.
470 Wendy Irene Sligl, Tatiana Dragan, Stephanie Wrenn Smith. . (2015) Nosocomial Gram-negative bacteremia in intensive care: epidemiology, antimicrobial susceptibilities, and outcomes. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 37, 129-134.
471 Kelly B. Flett, Al Ozonoff, Dionne A. Graham, Thomas J. Sandora, Gregory P. Priebe. . (2015) Impact of Mandatory Public Reporting of Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections on Blood Culture and Antibiotic Utilization in Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care Units. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:08, 878-885.
472 Carolyn J. Khong, James Baggs, David Kleinbaum, Ronda Cochran, John A. Jernigan. . (2015) The Likelihood of Hospital Readmission Among Patients With Hospital-Onset Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:08, 886-892.
473 Jesús López-Alcalde, Marta Mateos-Mazón, Marcela Guevara, Lucieni O Conterno, Ivan Solà, Sheila Cabir Nunes, Xavier Bonfill Cosp, Jesús López-Alcalde. . 2015. Gloves, gowns and masks for reducing the transmission of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the hospital setting. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
474 Carolyn A. Edelstein, Zain Kassam, Jamie Daw, Mark B. Smith, Colleen R. Kelly. . (2015) The regulation of fecal microbiota for transplantation: An international perspective for policy and public health. Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs 32:3, 99-107.
475 Keith S. Kaye, George Udeani, Phillip Cole, Hillel David Friedland. . (2015) Ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Hospital Practice 43:3, 144-149.
476 Guglielmo Borgia, Alberto Enrico Maraolo, Maria Foggia, Antonio Riccardo Buonomo, Ivan Gentile. . (2015) Fecal microbiota transplantation for Clostridium difficile infection: back to the future. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 15:7, 1001-1014.
477 Raúl Hernández-García, Elvira Garza-González, Mark Miller, Giovanna Arteaga-Muller, Alejandra María Galván-de los Santos, Adrián Camacho-Ortiz. . (2015) Application of the ATLAS score for evaluating the severity of Clostridium difficile infection in teaching hospitals in Mexico. The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases 19:4, 399-402.
478 N Daneman, A Guttmann, X Wang, X Ma, D Gibson, TA Stukel. . (2015) The association of hospital prevention processes and patient risk factors with the risk of Clostridium difficile infection: a population-based cohort study. BMJ Quality & Safety 24:7, 435-443.
479 Catherine Murphy, Jacqui Prieto, Mandy Fader. . (2015) “It's easier to stick a tube in”: a qualitative study to understand clinicians’ individual decisions to place urinary catheters in acute medical care. BMJ Quality & Safety 24:7, 444-450.
480 S. Di Bella, C. Nisii, N. Petrosillo. . (2015) Is tigecycline a suitable option for Clostridium difficile infection? Evidence from the literature. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 46:1, 8-12.
481 Shawna White, Lisa Spruce. . (2015) Perioperative Nursing Leaders Implement Clinical Practice Guidelines Using the Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice. AORN Journal 102:1, 50-59.
482 Zhiqiu Ye, Dana B. Mukamel, Susan S. Huang, Yue Li, Helena Temkin-Greener. . (2015) Healthcare-Associated Pathogens and Nursing Home Policies and Practices: Results From a National Survey. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:07, 759-766.
483 Simon Lax, Jack A Gilbert. . (2015) Hospital-associated microbiota and implications for nosocomial infections. Trends in Molecular Medicine 21:7, 427-432.
484 Eric Wenzler, Surafel Mulugeta, Larry Danziger. . (2015) The Antimicrobial Stewardship Approach to Combating Clostridium Difficile. Antibiotics 4:2, 198-215.
485 Alpesh N Amin, Dennis Deruelle. . (2015) Healthcare-associated infections, infection control and the potential of new antibiotics in development in the USA. Future Microbiology 10:6, 1049-1062.
486 Peter H. Gilligan. . (2015) Optimizing the Laboratory Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine 35:2, 299-312.
487 (2015) APIC advocacy on health information technology. American Journal of Infection Control 43:6, 548-550.
488 Scott D. Kobayashi, Natalia Malachowa, Frank R. DeLeo. . (2015) Pathogenesis of Staphylococcus aureus Abscesses. The American Journal of Pathology 185:6, 1518-1527.
489 V. Williams, A.E. Simor, A. Kiss, A. McGeer, Z. Hirji, O.E. Larios, C. Moore, K. Weiss. . (2015) Is the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant organisms changing in Canadian hospitals? Comparison of point-prevalence survey results in 2010 and 2012. Clinical Microbiology and Infection 21:6, 553-559.
490 Mohammed J. Saeed, Erik R. Dubberke, Victoria J. Fraser, Margaret A. Olsen. . (2015) Procedure-specific surgical site infection incidence varies widely within certain National Healthcare Safety Network surgery groups. American Journal of Infection Control 43:6, 617-623.
491 Andrej Steyer, Ion Gutiérrez-Aguirre, Nejc Rački, Sara Beigot Glaser, Barbara Brajer Humar, Marjeta Stražar, Igor Škrjanc, Mateja Poljšak-Prijatelj, Maja Ravnikar, Maja Rupnik. . (2015) The Detection Rate of Enteric Viruses and Clostridium difficile in a Waste Water Treatment Plant Effluent. Food and Environmental Virology 7:2, 164-172.
492 Sarah L Krein, Karen E Fowler, David Ratz, Jennifer Meddings, Sanjay Saint. . (2015) Preventing device-associated infections in US hospitals: national surveys from 2005 to 2013. BMJ Quality & Safety 24:6, 385-392.
493 Jingjing Shang, Patricia Stone, Elaine Larson. . (2015) Studies on nurse staffing and health care–associated infection: Methodologic challenges and potential solutions. American Journal of Infection Control 43:6, 581-588.
494 Ying P. Tabak, Richard S. Johannes, Xiaowu Sun, Carlos M. Nunez, L. Clifford McDonald. . (2015) Predicting the Risk for Hospital-Onset Clostridium difficile Infection (HO-CDI) at the Time of Inpatient Admission: HO-CDI Risk Score. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:06, 695-701.
495 C. T. Evans, S. Johnson. . (2015) Prevention of Clostridium difficile Infection With Probiotics. Clinical Infectious Diseases 60:suppl 2, S122-S128.
496 C. T. Evans, N. Safdar. . (2015) Current Trends in the Epidemiology and Outcomes of Clostridium difficile Infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases 60:suppl 2, S66-S71.
497 Arunee Nakhongsri, Gregory Crow. . (2015) Virtual nursing grand rounds. Nursing 45:5, 18-21.
498 George Allen. . (2015) Infection Prevention: A Patient Safety Imperative for the Perioperative Setting. AORN Journal 101:5, 508-510.
499 Charles E. Edmiston, Ojan Assadian, Maureen Spencer, Russell N. Olmsted, Sue Barnes, David Leaper. . (2015) To Bathe or Not to Bathe With Chlorhexidine Gluconate: Is It Time to Take a Stand for Preadmission Bathing and Cleansing?. AORN Journal 101:5, 529-538.
500 Sandy Bogucki, Alexander Isakov, David C. Cone. . (2015) Patients Under Investigation for Ebola Virus Disease in the United States: Hospital Preparedness Planning and Alternate Care Facilities. Academic Emergency Medicine 22:5, 600-604.
501 J. Otter. . (2015) Journal Roundup: Ebola, antibiotic use and abuse, and the usual suspects. Journal of Hospital Infection 90:1, 85-86.
502 Florian M Wagenlehner, Obiamiwe Umeh, Judith Steenbergen, Guojun Yuan, Rabih O Darouiche. . (2015) Ceftolozane-tazobactam compared with levofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary-tract infections, including pyelonephritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial (ASPECT-cUTI). The Lancet 385:9981, 1949-1956.
503 Daniel J. Morgan, Valerie M. Deloney, Allison Bartlett, Susan E. Boruchoff, Renato Camagros Couto, Michael Oji, Aruna Poojary, Gwen Rogers, Carol Sulis, Aaron M. Milstone. . (2015) The Expanding Role of the Hospital Epidemiologist in 2014: A Survey of the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:05, 605-608.
504 Jeffrey M. Bender, Mary Virgallito, Jason G. Newland, Julia S. Sammons, Emily A. Thorell, Susan E. Coffin, Andrew T. Pavia, Thomas J. Sandora, Adam L. Hersh. . (2015) Infection Prevention and Control Practices in Children’s Hospitals. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:05, 597-600.
505 Amanda J. Brinkworth, Carl H. Hammer, L. Renee Olano, Scott D. Kobayashi, Liang Chen, Barry N. Kreiswirth, Frank R. DeLeo, José A. Bengoechea. . (2015) Identification of Outer Membrane and Exoproteins of Carbapenem-Resistant Multilocus Sequence Type 258 Klebsiella pneumoniae. PLOS ONE 10:4, e0123219.
506 Trent Larson, Ravindra Gudavalli, Dean Prater, Scott Sutton. . (2015) Critical analysis of common canister programs: a review of cross-functional considerations and health system economics. Current Medical Research and Opinion 31:4, 853-860.
507 G. Patel, F. Perez, A.M. Hujer, S.D. Rudin, J.J. Augustine, G.H. Jacobs, M.R. Jacobs, R.A. Bonomo. . (2015) Fulminant endocarditis and disseminated infection caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in a renal-pancreas transplant recipient. Transplant Infectious Disease 17:2, 289-296.
508 H. Humphreys, P.J. Jenks. . (2015) Surveillance and management of ventriculitis following neurosurgery. Journal of Hospital Infection 89:4, 281-286.
509 S. Brusaferro, L. Arnoldo, G. Cattani, E. Fabbro, B. Cookson, R. Gallagher, P. Hartemann, J. Holt, S. Kalenic, W. Popp, G. Privitera, V. Prikazsky, C. Velasco, C. Suetens, C. Varela Santos. . (2015) Harmonizing and supporting infection control training in Europe. Journal of Hospital Infection 89:4, 351-356.
510 F. Barbut. . (2015) How to eradicate Clostridium difficile from the environment. Journal of Hospital Infection 89:4, 287-295.
511 A.J. Furlong, N.L. Clark, J.L. Schmalzel. . (2015) Configurable device to combat the spread of hospital acquired infections. 2015 41st Annual Northeast Biomedical Engineering Conference (NEBEC), 1-2.
512 Stefano Di Bella, Theodore Gouliouris, Nicola Petrosillo. . (2015) Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for Clostridium difficile infection: Focus on immunocompromised patients. Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy 21:4, 230-237.
513 Fang Gao, Yan-yan Wu, Jun-ning Zou, Ming Zhu, Jie Zhang, Hai-yan Huang, Li-juan Xiong. . (2015) Impact of a bundle on prevention and control of healthcare associated infections in intensive care unit. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology [Medical Sciences] 35:2, 283-290.
514 Calvin Williams, Patty McGraw, Elyse E. Schneck, Anna LaFae, Jesse T. Jacob, Daniela Moreno, Katherine Reyes, G. Fernando Cubillos, Daniel H. Kett, Ronald Estrella, Daniel J. Morgan, Anthony D. Harris, Marci Drees. . (2015) Impact of Universal Gowning and Gloving on Health Care Worker Clothing Contamination. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:04, 431-437.
515 Stephanie R. Black, Kingsley N. Weaver, Robert A. Weinstein, Mary K. Hayden, Michael Y. Lin, Mary Alice Lavin, Susan I. Gerber. . (2015) Regional Infection Control Assessment of Antibiotic Resistance Knowledge and Practice. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:04, 381-386.
516 Rupak Datta, N. Neely Kazerouni, Jon Rosenberg, Vinh Q. Nguyen, Michael Phelan, John Billimek, Chenghua Cao, Patricia McLendon, Kate Cummings, Susan S. Huang. . (2015) Substantial Variation in Hospital Rankings after Adjusting for Hospital-Level Predictors of Publicly-Reported Hospital-Associated Clostridium difficile Infection Rates. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:04, 464-466.
517 Mary Janice Jones, Niles P. Donegan, Irina V. Mikheyeva, Ambrose L. Cheung, Herminia de Lencastre. . (2015) Improving Transformation of Staphylococcus aureus Belonging to the CC1, CC5 and CC8 Clonal Complexes. PLOS ONE 10:3, e0119487.
518 E. Mylonakis, C. J. Clancy, L. Ostrosky-Zeichner, K. W. Garey, G. J. Alangaden, J. A. Vazquez, J. S. Groeger, M. A. Judson, Y.-M. Vinagre, S. O. Heard, F. N. Zervou, I. M. Zacharioudakis, D. P. Kontoyiannis, P. G. Pappas. . (2015) T2 Magnetic Resonance Assay for the Rapid Diagnosis of Candidemia in Whole Blood: A Clinical Trial. Clinical Infectious Diseases 60:6, 892-899.
519 D Eyre, L Tracey, B Elliott, C Slimings, P Huntington, R Stuart, T Korman, G Kotsiou, R McCann, D Griffiths, W Fawley, P Armstrong, K Dingle, A Walker, T Peto, D Crook, M Wilcox, T Riley. . (2015) Emergence and spread of predominantly community-onset Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 244 infection in Australia, 2010 to 2012. Eurosurveillance 20:10, 21059.
520 Rachel A. Smith, Nkuchia M. M’ikanatha, Andrew F. Read. . (2015) Antibiotic Resistance: A Primer and Call to Action. Health Communication 30:3, 309-314.
521 Michelle Traverse, Helen Aceto. . (2015) Environmental Cleaning and Disinfection. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice 45:2, 299-330.
522 Dale N. Gerding, Fernanda C. Lessa. . (2015) The Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile Infection Inside and Outside Health Care Institutions. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 29:1, 37-50.
523 Susan F. Paparella. . (2015) When Bugs and Drugs Converge: Promoting Safe Practices in the Emergency Department. Journal of Emergency Nursing 41:2, 141-143.
524 Adam J. Friedant, Brittany M. Gouse, Amelia K. Boehme, James E. Siegler, Karen C. Albright, Dominique J. Monlezun, Alexander J. George, Timothy Mark Beasley, Sheryl Martin-Schild. . (2015) A Simple Prediction Score for Developing a Hospital-Acquired Infection after Acute Ischemic Stroke. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases 24:3, 680-686.
525 Ioannis M Zacharioudakis, Fainareti N Zervou, Elina Eleftheria Pliakos, Panayiotis D Ziakas, Eleftherios Mylonakis. . (2015) Colonization With Toxinogenic C. difficile Upon Hospital Admission, and Risk of Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 110:3, 381-390.
526 Rhonda E. Colombo, Jose Vazquez. . (2015) Echinocandins for Primary Therapy of Candidemia: Time for a Paradigm Shift?. Current Fungal Infection Reports 9:1, 15-22.
527 Robin L. P. Jump, Curtis J. Donskey. . (2015) Clostridium difficile in the Long-Term Care Facility: Prevention and Management. Current Geriatrics Reports 4:1, 60-69.
528 Sanjay Saint, Karen E. Fowler, Kelley Sermak, Elissa Gaies, Molly Harrod, Penny Holland, Suzanne F. Bradley, J. Brian Hancock, Sarah L. Krein. . (2015) Introducing the No Preventable Harms campaign: Creating the safest health care system in the world, starting with catheter-associated urinary tract infection prevention. American Journal of Infection Control 43:3, 254-259.
529 Jennie H. Kwon, Margaret A. Olsen, Erik R. Dubberke. . (2015) The Morbidity, Mortality, and Costs Associated with Clostridium difficile Infection. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 29:1, 123-134.
530 Marya D. Zilberberg, Andrew F. Shorr, Scott T. Micek, Marin H. Kollef. . (2015) Clostridium difficile Recurrence Is a Strong Predictor of 30-Day Rehospitalization Among Patients in Intensive Care. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:03, 273-279.
531 Anupama Neelakanta, Sarit Sharma, Vishnu Priya Kesani, Madiha Salim, Amina Pervaiz, Nida Aftab, Tal Mann, Nader Tashtoush, Shigehiko Karino, Sorabh Dhar, Keith S. Kaye. . (2015) Impact of Changes in the NHSN Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI) Surveillance criteria on the Frequency and Epidemiology of CAUTI in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:03, 346-349.
532 Lessa , Fernanda C. , Mu , Yi , Bamberg , Wendy M. , Beldavs , Zintars G. , Dumyati , Ghinwa K. , Dunn , John R. , Farley , Monica M. , Holzbauer , Stacy M. , Meek , James I. , Phipps , Erin C. , Wilson , Lucy E. , Winston , Lisa G. , Cohen , Jessica A. , Limbago , Brandi M. , Fridkin , Scott K. , Gerding , Dale N. , McDonald , L. Clifford , . . (2015) Burden of Clostridium difficile Infection in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 372:9, 825-834.
533 Panayiotis D. Ziakas, Ioannis M. Zacharioudakis, Fainareti N. Zervou, Christos Grigoras, Elina Eleftheria Pliakos, Eleftherios Mylonakis, Abhishek Deshpande. . (2015) Asymptomatic Carriers of Toxigenic C. difficile in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Meta-Analysis of Prevalence and Risk Factors. PLOS ONE 10:2, e0117195.
534 M.-L. Lambert, R. Bruyndonckx, H. Goossens, N. Hens, M. Aerts, B. Catry, F. Neely, D. Vogelaers, N. Hammami. . (2015) The Belgian policy of funding antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals and trends of selected quality indicators for antimicrobial use, 1999-2010: a longitudinal study. BMJ Open 5:2, e006916-e006916.
535 Feroze Sidhwa, Kamal M.F. Itani. . (2015) Skin Preparation Before Surgery: Options and Evidence. Surgical Infections 16:1, 14-23.
536 Mohamed El Hassan, Asim Ahmed Elnour, Farah Hamad Farah, Abdulla Shehab, Naama M. Al Kalbani, Sahar Asim, Omer Abdulla Shehab, Rauda Abdulla. . (2015) Clinical pharmacists’ review of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in a tertiary hospital in Abu Dhabi. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 37:1, 18-22.
537 R. Latibeaudiere, R. Rosa, P. Laowansiri, K. Arheart, N. Namias, L. S. Munoz-Price. . (2015) Surveillance Cultures Growing Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Predict the Development of Clinical Infections: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Clinical Infectious Diseases 60:3, 415-422.
538 Anucha Apisarnthanarak, Nalini Singh, Aila Nica Bandong, Gilbert Madriaga. . (2015) Triclosan-Coated Sutures Reduce the Risk of Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:02, 169-179.
539 Y. Inoue, A. Hagi, T. Nii, Y. Tsubotani, H. Nakata, K. Iwata. . (2015) Novel antiseptic compound OPB-2045G shows potent bactericidal activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus both in vitro and in vivo: a pilot study in animals. Journal of Medical Microbiology 64:Pt_1, 32-36.
540 C. Eckert, A. Emirian, A. Le Monnier, L. Cathala, H. De Montclos, J. Goret, P. Berger, A. Petit, A. De Chevigny, H. Jean-Pierre, B. Nebbad, S. Camiade, R. Meckenstock, V. Lalande, H. Marchandin, F. Barbut. . (2015) Prevalence and pathogenicity of binary toxin–positive Clostridium difficile strains that do not produce toxins A and B. New Microbes and New Infections 3, 12-17.
541 Kohta Katayama, Manami Suzuki, Yukiko Seki, Nanami Mori, Takao Kanai, Yasuharu Tokuda. . (2015) Causes of New Onset Fever among Hospitalized Patients and Predictors for In-Hospital Mortality in a Teaching Hospital in Japan. General Medicine 16:2, 84-89.
542 Prashant Bhatia. . (2015) Alternative empiric therapy to carbapenems in management of drug resistant gram negative pathogens: a new way to spare carbapenems. Research Journal of Infectious Diseases 3:1, 2.
543 Joel Coffel, Eric Nuxoll. . (2015) Magnetic nanoparticle/polymer composites for medical implant infection control. J. Mater. Chem. B 3:38, 7538-7545.
544 Luc Bissonnette, Michel G. Bergeron. . 2015. POC Tests in Microbial Diagnostics. Current and Emerging Technologies for the Diagnosis of Microbial Infections, 87-110.
545 Noha Nafee. . 2015. Nanocarriers Against Bacterial Biofilms. Nanotechnology in Diagnosis, Treatment and Prophylaxis of Infectious Diseases, 167-189.
546 Brian León, F. P. Jake Haeckl, Roger G. Linington. . (2015) Optimized quinoline amino alcohols as disruptors and dispersal agents of Vibrio cholerae biofilms. Org. Biomol. Chem. 13:31, 8495-8499.
547 Gregory M. Susla. . (2015) Antibiotic Dosing in Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Renal Replacement Therapy. AACN Advanced Critical Care 26:3, 244-251.
548 Carlo de Werra, Sergio Aloia, Rosa di Micco, Roberto del Giudice, Roberto Tramontano, Francesco Mangani, Ludovica Maria Esposito, Gabriele di Filippo. . (2015) SSIs in Italy: Prevention and Surveillance during the Last Five Years. Surgical Science 06:08, 383-394.
549 Zaid M. Abdelsattar, Greta Krapohl, Layan Alrahmani, Mousumi Banerjee, Robert W. Krell, Sandra L. Wong, Darrell A. Campbell, David M. Aronoff, Samantha Hendren. . (2015) Postoperative Burden of Hospital-Acquired Clostridium difficile Infection. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 36:01, 40-46.
550 Harvey Rubin, Trevor Selwood, Takahiro Yano, Damian G. Weaver, H. Marie Loughran, Michael J. Costanzo, Richard W. Scott, Jay E. Wrobel, Katie B. Freeman, Allen B. Reitz. . (2015) Acinetobacter baumannii OxPhos inhibitors as selective anti-infective agents. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters 25:2, 378-383.
551 Clare F Heal, Mieke L van Driel, Phoebe D Lepper, Jennifer L Banks, Clare F Heal. . 2014. Topical antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing by primary intention. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
552 Ying P. Tabak, William R. Jarvis, Xiaowu Sun, Cynthia T. Crosby, Richard S. Johannes. . (2014) Meta-analysis on central line–associated bloodstream infections associated with a needleless intravenous connector with a new engineering design. American Journal of Infection Control 42:12, 1278-1284.
553 Kerrie A Davies, Christopher M Longshaw, Georgina L Davis, Emilio Bouza, Frédéric Barbut, Zsuzsanna Barna, Michel Delmée, Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Kate Ivanova, Ed Kuijper, Ioana S Macovei, Silja Mentula, Paola Mastrantonio, Lutz von Müller, Mónica Oleastro, Efthymia Petinaki, Hanna Pituch, Torbjörn Norén, Elena Nováková, Otakar Nyč, Maja Rupnik, Daniela Schmid, Mark H Wilcox. . (2014) Underdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile across Europe: the European, multicentre, prospective, biannual, point-prevalence study of Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalised patients with diarrhoea (EUCLID). The Lancet Infectious Diseases 14:12, 1208-1219.
554 Daithi S. Heffernan, Elizabeth D. Fox. . (2014) Advancing Technologies for the Diagnosis and Management of Infections. Surgical Clinics of North America 94:6, 1163-1174.
555 Zain Kassam, Christine H. Lee, Richard H. Hunt. . (2014) Review of the Emerging Treatment of Clostridium difficile Infection with Fecal Microbiota Transplantation and Insights into Future Challenges. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine 34:4, 787-798.
556 Joseph L. Fitzwater, Alan T.N. Tita. . (2014) Prevention and Management of Cesarean Wound Infection. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 41:4, 671-689.
557 Sean W. Pawlowski. . (2014) Clostridium difficile Infection Update for the Hospital-Based Physician. Current Emergency and Hospital Medicine Reports 2:4, 214-223.
558 , Chung-Jong Kim, Hong-Bin Kim, Myoung-don Oh, Yunhee Kim, Arim Kim, Sung-Hee Oh, Kyoung-Ho Song, Eu Suk Kim, Yong Kyun Cho, Young Hwa Choi, Jinyong Park, Baek-Nam Kim, Nam-Joong Kim, Kye-Hyung Kim, Eun Jung Lee, Jae-Bum Jun, Young Keun Kim, Sung min Kiem, Hee Jung Choi, Eun Ju Choo, Kyung-mok Sohn, Shinwon Lee, Hyun Ha Chang, Ji Hwan Bang, Su Jin Lee, Jae Hoon Lee, Seong Yeon Park, Min Hyok Jeon, Na Ra Yun. . (2014) The burden of nosocomial staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection in South Korea: a prospective hospital-based nationwide study. BMC Infectious Diseases 14:1.
559 Briony Elliott, Kate E. Dingle, Xavier Didelot, Derrick W. Crook, Thomas V. Riley. . (2014) The Complexity and Diversity of the Pathogenicity Locus in Clostridium difficile Clade 5. Genome Biology and Evolution 6:12, 3159-3170.
560 Gail Geller, Rachel Dvoskin, Chloe L Thio, Priya Duggal, Michelle H Lewis, Theodore C Bailey, Andrea Sutherland, Daniel A Salmon, Jeffrey P Kahn. . (2014) Genomics and infectious disease: a call to identify the ethical, legal and social implications for public health and clinical practice. Genome Medicine 6:11.
561 Paula Gardner, Matthew P. Muller, Betty Prior, Ken So, Jane Tooze, Linda Eum, Oksana Kachur. . (2014) Wheelchair cleaning and disinfection in Canadian health care facilities: “That's wheelie gross!”. American Journal of Infection Control 42:11, 1173-1177.
562 R. M. Donlan. . (2014) A New Approach to Mitigate Biofilm Formation on Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports. Journal of Infectious Diseases 210:9, 1345-1346.
563 Arjun Gupta, Robin Patel, Larry M. Baddour, Darrell S. Pardi, Sahil Khanna. . (2014) Extraintestinal Clostridium difficile Infections: A Single-Center Experience. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 89:11, 1525-1536.
564 Chunhui Li, Ximao Wen, Nan Ren, Pengcheng Zhou, Xun Huang, Ruie Gong, Li Feng, Hongman Wu, Zhenru Liu, Chenchao Fu, . . (2014) Point-Prevalence of Healthcare-Associated Infection in China in 2010: A Large Multicenter Epidemiological Survey. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 35:11, 1436-1437.
565 K. K. Trivedi, C. Dumartin, M. Gilchrist, P. Wade, P. Howard. . (2014) Identifying Best Practices Across Three Countries: Hospital Antimicrobial Stewardship in the United Kingdom, France, and the United States. Clinical Infectious Diseases 59:suppl 3, S170-S178.
566 Wendy Nickel, Sanjay Saint, Russell N. Olmsted, Eugene Chu, Linda Greene, Barbara S. Edson, Scott A. Flanders. . (2014) The Interdisciplinary Academy for Coaching and Teamwork (I-ACT): A novel approach for training faculty experts in preventing healthcare-associated infection. American Journal of Infection Control 42:10, S230-S235.
567 Vismay Thakkar, George M. Ghobrial, Christopher M. Maulucci, Saurabh Singhal, Srinivas K. Prasad, James S. Harrop, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Caleb Behrend, Ashwini D. Sharan, Jack Jallo. . (2014) Nasal MRSA colonization: Impact on surgical site infection following spine surgery. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 125, 94-97.
568 Jennie L. Mayfield. . (2014) Infection Prevention and Perioperative Professionals: A Crucial Partnership. AORN Journal 100:4, 435-438.
569 Yonit Wiener-Well, Eli Ben-Chetrit, Mustafa Abed-Eldaim, Marc V. Assous, Tamar Miller-Roll, Amos Adler. . (2014) Clinical and Molecular Characteristics of an Outbreak Caused by the Pandemic (BI/NAP1/027) Clostridium difficile Clone in a Single Center in Israel. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 35:10, 1306-1308.
570 Linus K. Ndegwa, Mark A. Katz, Kelly McCormick, Z. Nganga, Ann Mungai, Gideon Emukule, M.K.H.M. Kollmann, Lilian Mayieka, J. Otieno, Robert F. Breiman, Joshua A. Mott, Katherine Ellingson. . (2014) Surveillance for respiratory health care–associated infections among inpatients in 3 Kenyan hospitals, 2010-2012. American Journal of Infection Control 42:9, 985-990.
571 Margaret VanAmringe. . (2014) A View from The Joint Commission Perspective: Updated Compendium Will Continue to Help Reduce Healthcare-Associated Infections. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 35:S2, S18-S20.
572 Deborah S. Yokoe, Deverick J. Anderson, Sean M. Berenholtz, David P. Calfee, Erik R. Dubberke, Katherine D. Eilingson, Dale N. Gerding, Janet P. Haas, Keith S. Kaye, Michael Klompas, Evelyn Lo, Jonas Marschall, Leonard A. Mermel, Lindsay E. Nicolle, Cassandra D. Salgado, Kristina Bryant, David Classen, Katrina Crist, Valerie M. Deloney, Neil O. Fishman, Nancy Foster, Donald A. Goldmann, Eve Humphreys, John A. Jernigan, Jennifer Padberg, Trish M. Perl, Kelly Podgorny, Edward J. Septimus, Margaret VanAmringe, Tom Weaver, Robert A. Weinstein, Robert Wise, Lisa L. Maragakis. . (2014) A Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Updates. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 35:S2, S21-S31.
573 Hanan H. Balkhy, Walter Zingg. . (2014) Update on infection control challenges in special pediatric populations. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 27:4, 370-378.
574 Deborah S. Yokoe, Deverick J. Anderson, Sean M. Berenholtz, David P. Calfee, Erik R. Dubberke, Katherine D. Ellingson, Dale N. Gerding, Janet P. Haas, Keith S. Kaye, Michael Klompas, Evelyn Lo, Jonas Marschall, Leonard A. Mermel, Lindsay E. Nicolle, Cassandra D. Salgado, Kristina Bryant, David Classen, Katrina Crist, Valerie M. Deloney, Neil O. Fishman, Nancy Foster, Donald A. Goldmann, Eve Humphreys, John A. Jernigan, Jennifer Padberg, Trish M. Perl, Kelly Podgorny, Edward J. Septimus, Margaret VanAmringe, Tom Weaver, Robert A. Weinstein, Robert Wise, Lisa L. Maragakis. . (2014) A Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Updates. American Journal of Infection Control 42:8, 820-828.
575 Mary Lou Manning. . (2014) The urgent need for nurse practitioners to lead antimicrobial stewardship in ambulatory health care. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners 26:8, 411-413.
576 Alison L Galdys, Scott R Curry, Lee H Harrison. . (2014) Asymptomatic Clostridium difficile colonization as a reservoir for Clostridium difficile infection. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 12:8, 967-980.
577 Margaret VanAmringe. . (2014) A View from The Joint Commission Perspective: Updated Compendium Will Continue to Help Reduce Healthcare-Associated Infections. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 35:08, 964-966.
578 Deborah S. Yokoe, Deverick J. Anderson, Sean M. Berenholtz, David P. Calfee, Erik R. Dubberke, Katherine D. Ellingson, Dale N. Gerding, Janet P. Haas, Keith S. Kaye, Michael Klompas, Evelyn Lo, Jonas Marschall, Leonard A. Mermel, Lindsay E. Nicolle, Cassandra D. Salgado, Kristina Bryant, David Classen, Katrina Crist, Valerie M. Deloney, Neil O. Fishman, Nancy Foster, Donald A. Goldmann, Eve Humphreys, John A. Jernigan, Jennifer Padberg, Trish M. Perl, Kelly Podgorny, Edward J. Septimus, Margaret VanAmringe, Tom Weaver, Robert A. Weinstein, Robert Wise, Lisa L. Maragakis. . (2014) A Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Updates. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 35:08, 967-977.
579 (2014) Survey of Health Care–Associated Infections. New England Journal of Medicine 370:26, 2542-2543.
580 Sebastian Haller, Tim Eckmanns, Justus Benzler, Kristin Tolksdorf, Hermann Claus, Andreas Gilsdorf, Muna Abu Sin, Vittoria Colizza. . (2014) Results from the First 12 Months of the National Surveillance of Healthcare Associated Outbreaks in Germany, 2011/2012. PLoS ONE 9:5, e98100.
581 Jae Hyung Ryu, Tae-Hyoung Kim, Oh Joo Kweon, Mi-Kyung Lee. . (2014) Profiles of Yeast Isolated from Urinary Tracts with and without Catheter during 2011-2013. The Korean Journal of Urogenital Tract Infection and Inflammation 9:2, 93.
582 Kathryn S. Whitcomb. . (2014) Using a Multidimensional Approach to Improve Quality Related to Students’ Hand Hygiene Practice. Nurse Educator 39:6, 269-273.
| About 4% of US hospital patients acquire an infection while hospitalized, which added up to 648,000 people in 2011—75,000 of whom died, the Washington Post reports. The most common infections, according to a CDC survey: pneumonia (22%), surgical site injections (22%), and gastrointestinal infections (17%). Hospitals have curbed the problem somewhat, but throw in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and hospital patients have something to worry about. "Today and every day, more than 200 Americans with healthcare-associated infections will die during their hospital stay," said CDC Director Tom Frieden. A second CDC report included some good news—that infections from "central lines" inserted in major blood vessels have dropped 44% since 2008, and 10 surgical procedures saw a 20% drop, Medical News Today reports. What's more, President Obama's proposed 2015 budget allots money to lower antibiotic resistance, and 25 drug-makers agreed today to new guidelines prohibiting the use of antibiotics to beef up livestock, Reuters reports. But until hospitals become safer, what can patients do? An advocate advises people to insist that care-givers—even senior doctors—remain "compulsive" about hand hygiene. |
C ongressional office spending has been a regular topic of interest to Members of Congress, constituents, academics, interest groups, and media organizations. Members must choose how to allocate official funds and organize their offices and staff in a way to best represent their constituents. Media reports and interest groups have addressed Member activities and congressional spending on internal operations. A few scholars have also examined how Members typically spend their office allowances, analyzing spending within broader theories of representation. Individual office spending and actions, however, may be as varied as the states Senators represent. Senators operate their offices with funding from the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA). The account may support, for example, salaries for staff in both Washington, DC, and home state offices; official mail; travel between a Senator's home state and Washington, DC; equipment; and other goods and services. The allowance is provided on a fiscal year basis (October 1-September 30). Senators have a high degree of flexibility to operate their offices in a way that supports their congressional duties and responsibilities, although they must operate within a number of restrictions and regulations. The SOPOEA may only be used for official expenses and may not be used to defray any personal, political, or campaign-related expenses. Additional guidelines and regulations may be provided by Senate rules, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the Senate Ethics Committee, and statute. Senate expenses, including those supported by the SOPOEA, are reported biennially in the Report of the Secretary of the Senate and available online. This report provides a history of the SOPOEA and overview of recent developments, including recent funding. It also analyzes actual SOPOEA spending patterns in selected years (fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012) for all Senators who served for a defined period. Spending and practices across offices and across time may vary, and an examination of additional Congresses would be required for a more complete picture of congressional office spending patterns. In addition to resources provided through the SOPOEA, various Senate support offices, including the Secretary of the Senate and Sergeant at Arms, also provide services and resources to support Senators but are not considered in this report. For additional information, see CRS Report R43532, Offices and Officials in the Senate: Roles and Duties , by [author name scrubbed]. For a similar analysis of Member budgets in the House of Representatives, see CRS Report R40962, Members' Representational Allowance: History and Usage , by [author name scrubbed]. Senators have long been provided with resources to support their official duties. For example, Senators have been reimbursed for trips to their states, as well as funds for staffing assistance and maintaining home state offices. The level and means of providing this assistance has changed over time. For many years, funding for different types of expenses was provided in separate appropriations accounts. The current consolidated SOPOEA system was established in 1987 and effective January 1, 1988. It followed efforts during the previous decade to move to a system of increased flexibility for Senators in directing their individual office operations. The report from the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration accompanying the bill establishing the SOPOEA ( S. 1574 ) stated that the move "would allow Members to set their own priorities and react accordingly." Periodically, legislation has been introduced to amend the SOPOEA. The legislation has sought to regulate, prohibit, authorize, reduce, or encourage the use of funds for a particular purpose or to alter the SOPOEA in response to other action; increase transparency; or govern the use of unexpended balances. With few exceptions, however, no further action has been taken on these bills, and revisions to the SOPOEA generally have been made through the appropriations acts or internal procedures. The annual reports issued by the Senate Appropriations Committee accompanying the legislative branch appropriations bill generally provide preliminary SOPOEA allocation information for the upcoming fiscal year in a table arranged by state. The reports also generally indicate the total amount of agency contributions anticipated by the request; any amounts provided to cover "additional expenses that may be incurred in the event of the death or resignation of a Senator"; and the number of individuals employed by this account. The legislative branch appropriations acts have also periodically adjusted limits on "the aggregate of gross compensation paid employees in the office of a Senator," which is based on population of the state. The SOPOEA allocation for each Senator is calculated based on three components: administrative and clerical assistance allowance . This allowance has been based on state population since 1940, with the current system dating to 1967. Today, 25 population categories exist, ranging from populations below 5 million to over 28 million. The preliminary figures in the FY2016 Senate report ( S.Rept. 114-64 ) show this allowance varies from $2,409,294 for a Senator representing a state with a population under 5 million to $3,829,063 for a Senator representing a state with a population of 28 million or more. legislative assistance allowance . This allowance was first authorized in 1975 and revised in 1977. It was designed to provide Senators with support for their committee assignments, and it was established after lengthy hearings and debates regarding the level and division of Senate staffing resources devoted to committee work. The allowance is calculated based on salaries for three employees at a set rate, and it is the same for all Senators. According to the FY2016 Senate report ( S.Rept. 114-64 ), the legislative assistance component of the SOPOEA is $477,874. official office expense allowance , which varies by state depending on the distance between Washington, DC, and the home state, the population of the state, and the official (franked) mail allocation. According to S.Rept. 114-64 , the FY2016 office expense allowance component ranges from $121,120 to $453,274. The three components result in a single SOPOEA authorization for each Senator that can be used to pay for any type of official expense. Each Senator can choose how much to allocate to various types of expenses (e.g., travel or personnel or supplies), although additional limits pertain to spending on franked mail. Each Senator may also determine the number, job title, location, and duties of staff within his or her office. The SOPOEA allocation formula results in varying levels depending on the state from which a Senator is elected. Both Senators from a state receive the same allocation. Figure 1 demonstrates the variation in authorization levels that has resulted from the SOPOEA allocation formula from FY1996 through FY2016. For FY2016, SOPOEA levels range from $3,008,288 to $4,760,211. The difference between the median level ($3,064,818) and the average ($3,263,940) for FY2016 demonstrates the cluster of similar allocation levels for many states, with a larger differential for some of the larger states. Overall funding for the SOPOEA, described below, has decreased or remained flat in recent years, and the FY2016 maximum, minimum, average, and median allocation levels all remain below the corresponding FY2010 allocation levels. The SOPOEA for all Senators is funded in one line-item within the "Contingent Expenses of the Senate" account in the annual legislative branch appropriations bills. As seen in Figure 2 , this appropriations account has decreased in recent years, from a high of $422.0 million in FY2010 to $390.0 million in FY2014, a decrease of 7.6%, not adjusted for inflation. Appropriations acts for FY2015 ( P.L. 113-235 ) and FY2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) continued the FY2014 level. This level represents the lowest funding since the $373.5 million provided in FY2008. Adjusted for inflation, the FY2016 level is approximately equivalent to the FY2004 funding level. The Senate has taken actions to reduce this account both directly—for example, the FY2011 Continuing Appropriations Act stated that "each Senator's official personnel and office expense allowance (including the allowance for administrative and clerical assistance, the salaries allowance for legislative assistance to Senators, as authorized by the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1978 ( P.L. 95-94 ), and the office expense allowance for each Senator's office for each State) in effect immediately before the date of enactment of this section shall be reduced by 5 percent" —and more indirectly through broader appropriations actions that may have influenced the funding level for this account (i.e., continuing resolutions, across-the-board rescissions, and the FY2013 sequestration). The SOPOEA appropriations account includes agency contributions for benefits provided to employees paid by this account. As stated above, it does not include certain services provided to Senators from other accounts. This may include, for example, services or allowances provided by the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate, or the Architect of the Capitol. In addition, the SOPOEA does not include salaries for Senators, which are provided separately through a permanent appropriation. For many years, the Senate Appropriations Committee reports on the annual legislative branch appropriations bill have contained language stating that the prudence of Senators in SOPOEA spending has been factored into the recommended level for this account. For example, the FY2016 report states, The amount recommended by the Committee for the SOPOEA is less than would be required to cover all obligations that could be incurred under the authorized allowances for all Senators. The Committee is able to recommend an appropriation of a lesser amount than potentially necessary because Senators typically do not obligate funds up to the absolute ceiling of their respective allowances. The FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act contains a new administrative provision "requiring amounts remaining in Senators' official personnel and office expense account to be used for deficit reduction or to reduce the federal debt." A similar administrative provision was previously included in the Senate Appropriations Committee's reported version of the bill ( H.R. 2250 ). The analysis below demonstrates the use of the SOPOEA in four selected years (fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012). The information is derived from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate. Since late-arriving bills may be paid for up to two years following the end of the SOPOEA year, information for FY2012, for example, was collected from volumes covering FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014. To account for late-arriving bills, fiscal years were only included if data for the subsequent two years are complete. Due to data collection limitations, only selected years were examined, although this precludes an examination of the funding limitations in recent years. The data exclude Senators who were not in Congress for the entirety of the initial fiscal year. SOPOEA spending is recorded in the Report of the Secretary of the Senate according to the following categories: net payroll expenses travel and transportation of persons rent, communications, and utilities printing and reproduction other contractual services supplies and materials acquisition of assets transportation of things This classification system is similar, but not identical, to that established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The tables and figure below examine spending in the aggregate by all Senators and then as a distribution using office-level data. Office-level data were examined since, as stated above, Senators are provided flexibility to operate their offices in the manner that best represents the states from which they are elected and aggregate Senate data may not be typical or representative of any individual Senator's office. The data show a relative consistency in the overall allocation of SOPOEA resources by category of spending both across Senators and over time. As seen in Figure 3 , the largest category of spending in all four years, accounting for 90% of total SOPOEA spending by Senators, is for personnel compensation (i.e., net payroll expense). Table 1 provides a distributional analysis at the office level. Expenditures for all of the categories utilized by the Senate were collected, although this table only examines the largest ones. As with the Senate-wide data depicted in Figure 3 , the office-level data indicate that personnel compensation is by far the largest category of expense for Senators' offices. Spending on personnel as a percentage of total office spending varied (from as low as 70% of all expenditures to more than 96%), but personnel costs comprised 90% of the average office's spending each year. Data on other categories of spending also demonstrate that, while some variation exists across offices and years, similar patterns have developed. Table 2 shows spending as a proportion of the total individual authorization. For example, approximately 10% of Senators spent between 80% and 85% of their allowance in FY2011. As discussed above, the data collection methodology precludes an examination of the most recent fiscal years, when the appropriations account has been flat or decreased. | The Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA) is available to assist Senators in their official duties. The allowance is provided on a fiscal year basis (i.e., October 1-September 30). Funding is provided in the annual legislative branch appropriations bills. Senators have a high degree of flexibility to use the SOPOEA to operate their offices in a way that supports their congressional duties and responsibilities, and individual office spending may be as varied as the states from which the Senators are elected. This appropriations account has decreased in recent years, from a high of $422.0 million in FY2010 to $390.0 million in FY2014, a decrease of 7.6%. The appropriation remained at the FY2014 level in the FY2015 and FY2016 appropriations acts. The SOPOEA for each Senator is calculated based on three variables—the administrative and clerical assistance allowance, the legislative assistance allowance, and the official office expense allowance. The formula results in a single, consolidated allowance for each Senator that can be used to pay for any type of approved official expense, subject to any regulations or limitations established by statute, Senate rules, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Senate Ethics Committee. A preliminary list of SOPOEA levels shows a range in FY2016 of $3,008,288 to $4,760,211, depending on the state. The average allowance is $3,263,940. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §4108, Senate expenses are reported online biennially on a fiscal year basis in the Report of the Secretary of the Senate. This report provides a history of the SOPOEA and overview of recent developments, including funding levels. It also analyzes actual SOPOEA spending patterns in selected years (fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012). For a similar analysis of Member office budgets in the House of Representatives, see CRS Report R40962, Members' Representational Allowance: History and Usage, by [author name scrubbed]. |
WASHINGTON -- Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the nation's leading anti-breast-cancer charity, has insisted that its since-reversed decision to pull funding from Planned Parenthood arose from a routine change in criteria for grant eligibility that had nothing to do with abortion politics.
But a Komen insider told HuffPost on Sunday that Karen Handel, Komen's staunchly anti-abortion vice president for public policy, was the main force behind the decision to defund Planned Parenthood and the attempt to make that decision look nonpolitical.
"Karen Handel was the prime instigator of this effort, and she herself personally came up with investigation criteria," the source, who requested anonymity for professional reasons, told HuffPost. "She said, 'If we just say it's about investigations, we can defund Planned Parenthood and no one can blame us for being political.'"
Emails between Komen leadership on the day the Planned Parenthood decision was announced, which were reviewed by HuffPost under the condition they not be published, confirm the source's description of Handel's sole "authority" in crafting and implementing the Planned Parenthood policy.
Handel's strategy to cut off Planned Parenthood involved drafting new guidelines that would prevent Komen from funding any organization that was under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. Since Planned Parenthood is currently the target of a congressional inquiry prompted by House Republicans into the way it uses government funds, the family planning provider would have been immediately disqualified from receiving new Komen grants.
After the initial uproar when news of the decision broke, the story that Komen told the public was that the cut-off was unrelated to a political agenda against Planned Parenthood.
"While it is regrettable when changes in priorities and policies affect any of our grantees, such as a long-standing partner like Planned Parenthood, we must continue to evolve to best meet the needs of the women we serve and most fully advance our mission," the charity said in a statement this past Tuesday.
Americans United for Life and other pro-life groups have been pressuring Komen for years to cut ties with Planned Parenthood because some of its clinics offer abortions, even though none of Komen's money was used toward abortion services. Handel's internal strategy, the Komen source told HuffPost, was to exaggerate those attacks and use them to convince the leadership that funding Planned Parenthood was a political liability.
"Komen's been dealing with the Planned Parenthood issue for years, and you know, some right-wing groups would organize a protest or send out a mailing every now and then, but it was on a low simmer," the source said. "What Karen's been doing for the past six months is ratcheting up the issue with leadership. Every time someone would even mention a protest, she would magnify it, pump it up, exaggerate it. She's the one that kept driving this issue."
Handel and Komen President Elizabeth Thompson didn't respond to requests for comment.
The source said Handel submitted a final version of the new grant criteria to Komen leadership in November, and the board approved it in December, at which point Komen's top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned "on the spot."
"It was apparent to everyone in the organization that Karen was doing everything in her power to defund Planned Parenthood," the source said, "and that's why Mollie Williams quit."
Williams has previously declined to comment on why she left, but she told National Journal that she respects the work of Planned Parenthood.
But the criteria did gain the support of Komen's top executives and board. And in an interview with HuffPost, board member John D. Rafaelli, a Democratic lobbyist and a supporter of Planned Parenthood's mission, took responsibility for the changes. As the only lobbyist on the board, he said, he should have anticipated the political fallout.
"Honestly, I didn't think it through well enough," Rafaelli said. "We don't want to be pro-choice or pro-life; we want to be pro-cure. We screwed up, I'm saying it. We failed to keep abortion out of this, and we owe the people in the middle who only care about breast cancer and who have raised money for us an apology."
The backlash against Komen was intense, including threats of violence, angry letters from members of Congress and public rebukes from political figures such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The charity struggled to deal with the pressure, especially in a face-off against Planned Parenthood, an organization whose fine-tuned political team has experience in these high-pitched, high-stakes debates.
It was speculated that Komen founder Nancy Brinker hired her friend Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for President George W. Bush, to help her handle the crisis. But Fleischer told HuffPost that he had no part in guiding Komen's strategy on this issue except to recommend an outside crisis management firm.
"It's just sad for everybody concerned," he said on Friday. "Komen is a great group, but politically speaking, they're no match for Planned Parenthood."
The Komen insider agreed with Fleischer's assessment.
"Komen's not equipped to spend its days fighting political battles," the source said. "Abortion is not our issue, and I think [leadership] tried to finesse a way out of it, and this investigation criteria was the solution. And it blew up in their faces. They were just naive in the face of [the] incredibly sophisticated Planned Parenthood operation."
Stunned by the fallout, Komen leadership decided within three days to reverse the Planned Parenthood decision and apologize. But the Komen insider said Handel was furious about the cave and fought against it up until the point that it was announced Friday morning.
"It became clear Thursday night that something had to give," the source said. "Nancy Brinker, Liz Thompson, the board, and leadership were saying, 'We're really worried about Komen's mission if we don't figure this out.' But Karen was still arguing against it as of Friday morning -- she was horrified that we were caving, she said. She's politically tone-deaf."
In light of the political damage and the abrupt reversal of the Planned Parenthood funding decision, pressure has mounted inside Komen for Handel to resign.
"Everybody in the organization wishes she would do the right thing," the Komen insider said.
So far, Handel hasn't indicated an intention to step down. Nor does it appear that she's been formally asked to do so. But as a result of her efforts, Komen has been left reeling and its reputation as a top charity endangered. ||||| Komen Foundation Struggles To Lure Back Donors
Enlarge this image toggle caption Stephen Brashear/Getty Images Stephen Brashear/Getty Images
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation is facing a fight to keep controversy from undermining its fundraising efforts.
After announcing that it would withdraw funding from Planned Parenthood screening programs last week — and then reversing that decision three days later — the foundation now faces the challenging task of repairing its image and trying to lure back disillusioned donors.
One of the nation's largest breast cancer charities, the foundation spends tens of millions of dollars annually on breast cancer research, education and screening.
At the Arlington Free Clinic in Northern Virginia, two-dozen women gathered to check in for a program known as the Komen Clinic. The program, funded by a $200,000 Komen Foundation grant, offers free breast exams to low-income women once a month.
Clinic director Nancy Pallison says many of these women wouldn't get the care they need without the Komen foundation's funding.
"They can't afford it. They don't know where to go, they don't have a regular doctor who would prescribe it for them," Pallison says. "So this just offers it to them for no cost, and it's a wonderful screening tool."
Like many Komen foundation grant recipients nationwide, the Arlington Free Clinic staff is worried about the screening program's future. The foundation spends more than $90 million each year on such community programs, and millions more for breast cancer research.
But many funders, annoyed by the foundation's initial decision to defund Planned Parenthood, have said they'll no longer give to the organization. Others, upset that the decision was reversed, have also said they'll no longer offer financial support.
Melissa Berman, president and CEO of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, a consulting firm in New York, is optimistic that the foundation will eventually recover. "They changed their mind pretty quickly, and so they're going to be able to make a recovery here," Berman says.
Berman cites nonprofits like the American Red Cross and United Way, which both bounced back from high-profile controversies. But, she says, it takes time and a lot of hard work.
"Susan G. Komen will have to tell the story of how many women they reach, how many women get access to care, how many women participate in their events, how much research they're funding. They'll just have to continue to tell that story clearly and concisely," Berman says.
Indeed, foundation leaders started reaching out over the weekend, holding conference calls with affiliates and key supporters. Foundation officials did not respond to NPR's requests for comment.
Berman says Komen's long track record of impressive work for a good cause will ultimately help the foundation bounce back. But others think the latest crisis also provides an opportunity for donors to start asking some serious questions.
Susan B. Love is president of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, which focuses on identifying the causes of breast cancer. Love, like many others in the breast cancer community, is critical of the Komen foundation for spending most of its research funds on treatment and finding a cure, rather than on disease prevention.
"Pink ribbons and walks and runs and all of that has raised a lot of money, and a lot of women are cured of breast cancer," Love says. "But around 110 women in this country die every day of breast cancer, and we've lost sight of the fact that just treating it is not good enough.
"What I hope the fallout will be is that it will be a wake-up call, that raising money is not enough. We need to ask how it's being spent," Love says.
Others worry that Komen's many corporate partnerships unduly influence the foundation's work.
"The problem with [corporate relationships] is that it does cause foundations to lose sight of their core vision if they're putting so much energy into chasing these sponsorships," says Samantha King, associate professor at Queens University in Ontario and author of the book Pink Ribbons Inc.
King cites Komen's 2010 "Buckets for the Cure" campaign with Kentucky Fried Chicken. Some studies have linked fatty foods to a higher risk of cancer.
In the past, the Komen foundation has said it only joins forces with those who share its philosophy and can help it to reach new audiences. But that explanation will likely get a lot more scrutiny now, as more donors question where they want their dollars to go. ||||| Founder Nancy G. Brinker and President Elizabeth Thompson talked to executives from Komen affiliates across the country about ways to apologize to supporters and about what needs to be done next, according to a Komen official.
The overall tone was positive, but there were “lots of tough and candid questions” from executive directors and local board members, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal communications.
Robin Prothro, executive director of Komen Maryland, said national leaders told affiliates that “we’re on track; this is what we’re doing.”
Maria Williamson, president of the Komen affiliate in Virginia’s Tidewater region, said Brinker spoke of her “deep concern” about the community backlash and the onslaught of media inquiries that deluged Komen offices last week.
Williamson likened the reaction in her office to a Category 5 hurricane. But, she said, “a really good brand can withstand a big hurricane.”
The foundation reversed course Friday after the overwhelming public reaction to news on Tuesday that Komen was no longer going to fund Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer screening because of a congressional investigation into whether the group was using federal money to pay for abortions. Planned Parenthood is now eligible to apply for grants, Komen said.
Now Komen executives are faced with the task of restoring credibility to one of the strongest brands in the nonprofit world.
Brendan Daly, an executive vice president at Ogilvy Public Relations and a onetime aide to former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), confirmed that Komen had sought his help last week.
Brinker told affiliates Saturday that they would also be getting help on crisis communications from Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary in the George W. Bush administration. Fleischer said Saturday night that he had not been asked but that if he could help, perhaps he would. Neither consultant was involved in the initial funding decision.
“People may now question the role political ideology plays in their decision-making, and that didn’t enter into people’s minds in the past,” said Lee Lynch, who heads health-care advocacy and does crisis management for the public relations firm Edelman. “So they’re going to have to deal with that perception.”
Some corporate sponsors are reviewing their partnerships. Komen affiliates have already lost donations and Race for the Cure sponsorships. In New York, the Tocqueville Restaurant e-mailed a “note of concern” Saturday to patrons, notifying them that it was no longer donating proceeds to Komen from a special dinner Tuesday because of “the recent events.” ||||| DALLAS - Nancy Brinker, founder and chief executive of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, took home $417,000 in salary in 2010, according to financial documents posted on the charity’s Website, and paid 50 top executives more than $100,000 each.
What the Dallas-based foundation spent on staff and administrative expenses included $20 million for advertising and promotion, $14 million for “office expenses’’ and more than $14 million for consulting and professional services. Another $7 million was spent on
Nancy Brinker, founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen for the Cure contract labor and $3 million for travel. Komen officials did not return calls and emails seeking comment on Monday.
Brinker, who also serves on Komen’s board of directors, traveled first class on airlines with the explicit permission of the board she chairs.
The expenses are disclosed in financial reports on the charity’s website. Komen operations have been under intense scrutiny since last week when a plan to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood triggered blistering criticism of Komen’s leadership.
Top executives at the nation’s largest charities, such as the Boy Scouts of America, the United Way and Easter Seals, earn more than Brinker, according to an annual ranking by Charity Navigator.
“For the small handful of charities that big, it’s normal,’’ Charity Navigator’s president and chief executive Ken Berger said of Brinker’s salary.
He said the first-class air travel is more of a concern because most donors want to feel that executives put the organization’s mission above their own comfort.
“Even though there’s nothing illegal about it, it does raise questions about the efficiency of a charity if they’re spending funds for first class,’’ Berger said.
He said Komen has gotten a lot of negative feedback in the past week on a website that tracks comments from donors and employees. But the organization itself has generally earned good marks for fundraising and program expenses.
James Abruzzo, a management and global business instructor at Rutgers Business School, said the picture that emerges from the Komen documents does raise concerns, however.
The fact that Komen is making severance payments to four top executives is a cause for concern about the way the organization is run, Abruzzo said.
As for Brinker’s salary and first-class travel, while it may be deserved, it probably sends the wrong message to potential donors, he added.
“When you’re trying to raise money from other people, it sends a bad signal,’’ he said.
The recent controversy makes Komen the “new Coke of nonprofits,’’ according to Advertising Age, which said Komen’s decision and its rapid reversal “showed how a brand can boomerang from one of the most loved into one of the most reviled in a head-snapping two days.’’
Critics blamed politics for Komen’s attempt to cut off Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions, but not with funds from Komen. And some abortion opponents took credit for persuading Komen to drop Planned Parenthood.
But Brinker insisted Komen, which she founded in her sister’s memory 30 years ago, was merely trying to be a good financial steward, noting that Planned Parenthood is under investigation by a U.S. House member.
Even when Komen reversed itself and said Planned Parenthood funding could continue, some donors questioned the charity’s leadership. Recent turnover among top staff have been reported by the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, and linked to discussions about cutting off Planned Parenthood.
But the turnover seems to have preceded those discussions, too; the latest financial report shows that Komen making severance payments to four people, three of them former staffers who each earned more than $100,000 annually.
Compensation for top officers, directors, trustees and other key employees was $2.7 million in 2010. Other salaries were listed at $17 million, not including millions more for payroll taxes, pension payments and other benefits.
The majority of Komen’s revenue appeared to come from contributions and grants. It also collected funds from affiliates and fundraising events.
Komen also funded more than $72 million in grants and aid within the U.S., often to medical centers for research and education.
Another $4 million was spent outside the U.S. in grants of varying sizes across Europe, the Middle East, Africa and South America.
Lori Stahl is a Dallas-based journalist. Follow her on Twitter at @LoriStahl. | Susan G. Komen Foundation leaders have given several reasons for the charity's now-reversed cuts to Planned Parenthood funding—but here's one they didn't mention. Komen's VP for public policy, abortion-rights opponent Karen Handel, fueled the decision, an insider with the group tells the Huffington Post. Handel worked to paint the decision as nonpolitical, the source says. She "was the prime instigator of this effort. She said, 'If we just say it's about investigations, we can defund Planned Parenthood and no one can blame us for being political.'" HuffPo reports that it was shown internal emails sent on the day the Planned Parenthood cuts were announced that confirm that Handel had "sole authority in crafting and implementing the policy." Komen remains in the media spotlight following the decision. Financial records show that the charity's founder and CEO, Nancy Brinker, earned a $417,000 salary in 2010, with 50 other execs earning $100,000 each, the Washington Post reports. That (along with expenditures like $3 million on travel) may not help Komen as it scrambles to recover from the mess. In order to win back donors, the group needs to "tell the story of how many women they reach, how many women get access to care, how much research they're funding," a consultant tells NPR. To that end, the group says it's bringing former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer aboard to help Komen with damage control. |
SAN DIEGO — Mitt Romney laid down a marker for a prospective presidential campaign in 2016, telling a Republican audience here Friday night that the party can win the White House with a conservative message that stresses security and safety for the American people, opportunity for all regardless of background and a plan to lift people out of poverty.
In his first public appearance since his surprise announcement that he will seriously consider a third campaign for the White House, Romney offered an economic message that represented a dramatic departure from the themes he sounded in losing the 2012 campaign to President Obama.
“Under President Obama, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse and there are more people in poverty than ever before,” Romney said. “Under this president, his policies have not worked. Their liberal policies are good every four years for a campaign, but they don’t get the job done.”
In his last campaign, Romney was hampered by an image, pushed by the Democrats, that he was a wealthy business executive who was out of touch with ordinary Americans. On Friday, he seemed determined to send a signal that he would try to deal with that problem from the start, should he run.
“It’s a tragedy -- a human tragedy – that the middle class in this country by and large doesn’t believe the future won’t be better than the past or their kids will have a brighter future of their own,” Romney said. He added, “People want to see rising wages and they deserve them.”
As with others in his party, he raised the issue of social mobility and the difficulty of those at the bottom from rising into the middle class. He cited former president Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty half a century ago. Johnson’s intentions were good, he said, but his policies had not worked. He argued that Republicans must persuade voters that conservative policies can “end the scourge of poverty” in America.
Beyond a focus aimed more at struggling middle-class families and those in poverty, Romney’s brief remarks Friday included comments about the work he had done as a lay pastor in the Mormon Church, a topic he rarely spoke about in his past campaigns. He invoked his wife Ann, who stood on the stage with him.
“She knows my heart in a way that few people do,” he said. “She’s seen me not just as a business guy and a political guy, but for over 10 years as you know I served as a pastor for a congregation and for groups of congregations... She’s seen me work with folks that are looking for better work and jobs and providing care for the sick and the elderly. She knows where my heart is.”
Romney joked also that the question he’s been asked most frequently in recent days is what Ann thinks about another campaign. “She believes that people get better with experience,” he joked. “Heaven knows I have experience running for president.”
The one element of Romney’s substantive remarks that did not mark a departure from his last campaign was criticism of Obama on foreign policy. Citing threats across the globe to U.S. security, Romney said, “The results of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama foreign policy have been devastating, and you know that. Terrorism is not on the run.”
Romney’s appearance came aboard the USS Midway, an aircraft carrier museum docked in downtown San Diego, where the Republican National Committee held a reception to conclude its winter meeting here. His appearance drew a throng of reporters, with about two dozen cameras awaiting him and his wife when they arrived shortly before 7 p.m. PT.
Before taking the stage, Romney mingled with RNC members and reminisced about happy times on the campaign trail in 2012. When he saw some friends from Puerto Rico, he recalled the thunderous rally he attended in San Juan during the territory’s primary campaign.
“I don’t think anybody thought we’d be getting any delegates in Puerto Rico, but we got ‘em all, thanks to you,” Romney said.
Ann chimed in, “That was the most extraordinary night.”
Ann told a few reporters she was excited to be back on the campaign trail, but said this was a “time to think.” Asked whether her husband would run again, she said, “We don’t know yet.”
As the Romneys walked to their SUV to leave the aircraft carrier, a few fans asked Mitt to autograph a few baseballs.
"Look at this," he said with a smile and a chuckle. "Isn't that nice to get the chance to sign a baseball again?"
He signed a few, but then told them, "One more. I don't want to flood the market with these -- might drop the price below 50 cents again."
His last words as he got into the waiting SUV were: “I’m thinking – thinking about it. Giving it consideration.”
Romney’s remarks came at the end of a tumultuous week in the Republican presidential race — and a roller-coaster ride for the 2012 nominee. His declaration that he will seriously consider running again generated both surprise and excitement within GOP circles. The announcement foreshadowed a potentially dramatic clash between the former Massachusetts governor and former Florida governor Jeb Bush.
Romney and his inner circle worked the phones in an effort to gauge interest and potential support for a third campaign, and to begin to reassemble the team that carried him to the nomination and into the general election.
But within days, another reality set in, which was resistance to his possible candidacy. A few one-time Romney supporters expressed public skepticism while others privately said they hoped he would not go forward.
There was criticism as well about the way the rollout was handled, which appeared to have been little planned and caught even some close to Romney by surprise. There was criticism as well about the rationale that some of those around Romney were using to justify a new campaign.
Many Republicans, however fond they are of Romney personally, are unforgiving about the campaign he ran, arguing that Obama was highly vulnerable and that a more skilled campaign and candidate would have won.
Romney quickly came under pressure to explain not only the substance behind his belief that he should be the 2016 nominee but also to show that a new campaign would be run differently, with new faces and an expanded operation. |||||
Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney sought to cast himself as a champion of the nation’s poor Friday, as he announced he is giving a third presidential campaign “serious consideration.”
Addressing the GOP’s elite at the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee aboard the U.S.S. Midway, Romney premiered a brand new stump speech, laying out the themes of his proto-campaign and for the party in the “post-Obama era.”
“First, we have to make the world safer,” Romney said. “Second, we have to make sure and provide opportunity for all Americans regardless of the neighborhood they live in. And finally, we have to lift people out of poverty. If we communicate those three things effectively, the American people are going to be with us—be with our nominee and with our candidates across the country.”
Romney received a warm welcome from the members of the RNC in his first appearance with them since his Nov. 2012 loss to President Barack Obama. “It’s nice to appear with friends like this, I gotta tell ya,” he said over the clamor of applause as he took the stage.
In strikingly personal terms for the famously wooden candidate, Romney spoke about his service as a “pastor” in the Mormon Church helping the poor, saying of his wife, Ann, “She’s seen me work with people who are very poor to help them get help.” Romney aides said that should he formally announce he would be more comfortable showing his warmer private persona in public.
“Under President Obama, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse, and there are more people in poverty in America than ever before,” Romney said. “People want to see rising wages, and they deserve them,” he added.
He argued that conservative principles would best address the problem.
“The only policies that will reach into the hearts of American people and pull people out of poverty and break the cycle of poverty are Republican principles, conservative principles. They include family formation, and education and good jobs and we’re going to bring them to the American people and finally end the scourge of poverty in this great land.”
The focus on poverty reflected a significant change of tune for Romney, a multimillionaire private equity executive who famously told a group of donors that 47 percent of Americans would never vote for him because they are dependent on government and “believe that they are victims.” Romney’s 2012 campaign even prevented his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, from incorporating a discussion of poverty into his stump speech.
But Romney continued to echo his infamous line, as well as his assertion after the election that Obama won in 2012 because he gave “gifts” to minority voters, saying of Democrats, “Their liberal policies are good every four years for a campaign, but they don’t get the job done.”
Romney, who believes his 2012 critiques of the Obama foreign policy have been vindicated, sharply criticized the president’s handling of global crises and geopolitical threats. “The world is not safer six years after Barack Obama has been in office,” he said, referencing last week’s terrorist attacks in France, Nigeria, and Yemen. “Terrorism is not on the run.”
Romney indicated that his wife is on board with a potential third campaign. “She believes that people get better with experience, and heaven knows I have experience running for president,” he quipped, adding, “Me, I’m giving some serious consideration to the future.”
Romney said regardless of his decision, he would work to support the Republican Party’s nominee in 2016.
In his introduction, RNC Chair Reince Priebus effusively praised Romney in his introduction, crediting him for his help for GOP candidates in 2014.
“Governor Romney was the man over these last two years,” Priebus said. “I just want to thank him for all of the work that he did, beside the life-changing experience of being the nominee, Mitt Romney was a person who spent the next two years helping our party, helping our party rebuild, and helping our party grow.”
But Romney, who faced a skeptical, if friendly audience, did not put an end to doubts that his candidacy would be in the party’s best interests.
“We heard some new themes tonight from Governor Romney, but we heard many other candidates’ new themes this week,” said South Carolina Chairman Matt Moore. “What’s clear is that this primary is going to be seriously competitive—whether Governor Romney gets in, or not.”
“I think he was talking about supporting the team,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, discounting Romney’s talk that he’s seriously considering a bid. “Obviously he’s doing a trip around to ask people whether they think he should be the candidate, but the important thing:, he made a strong commitment to the RNC here tonight that regardless of the outcome he’d be supporting the nominee.”
Issa would not say whether he thought Romney should launch a third bid for the White House. ||||| SAN DIEGO (AP) — Mitt Romney is offering a rare glimpse of his softer side as he marches toward an unlikely third presidential bid focused on poverty and the middle class.
Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential nominee, left, looks at his wife Ann, right, after speaking during the Republican National Committee's winter meeting aboard the USS Midway Museum Friday,... (Associated Press)
Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential nominee, left, greets people after speaking during the Republican National Committee's winter meeting aboard the USS Midway Museum Friday, Jan. 16, 2015,... (Associated Press)
Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential nominee, speaks during the Republican National Committee's winter meeting aboard the USS Midway Museum Friday, Jan. 16, 2015, in San Diego. (AP Photo/Gregory... (Associated Press)
Conceding that he's giving "serious consideration to the future," the Republican Party's 2012 presidential nominee on Friday cited the support of his wife, Ann, as he addressed the closing reception of the Republican National Committee's winter meeting aboard a retired aircraft carrier.
"The last few days, the most frequently asked question I get is, 'What does Ann think about all this?'" Romney said as his wife looked on. "She believes that people get better with experience. And heaven knows I have experience running for president."
He later added, "She knows where my heart is."
Romney earned a standing ovation for his remarks, his first public acknowledgement of 2016 ambitions since privately signaling interest with donors a week earlier. However, RNC members and his prospective opponents were far less welcoming in the days leading up to his appearance.
"The country moves on," said Henry Barbour, a Republican national committeeman from Mississippi. "And that's going to be a challenge for Gov. Romney."
History is not on Romney's side. Not since Richard Nixon has a Republican presidential nominee lost the general election — John F. Kennedy defeated Nixon in 1960 — and then won the GOP nomination again. Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
Yet there is little doubt Romney would be a force in the 2016 contest should he run.
He remains one of the best-known Republicans in the nation, maintains close ties to the GOP elite donor class and has a network of loyal supporters across the country. Early polls show him doing well against lesser-known potential Republican opponents.
Yet an overwhelming concern from former supporters looms over his return to the national stage: the lingering perception that the former private equity executive cares only about the fate of wealthy Americans.
The image was fueled in part by his own high-profile missteps during his last presidential campaign. The son of an auto company chief executive who made a fortune in finance measured in the hundreds of millions famously described corporations as people and highlighted his close friendships with the owners of professional sports teams.
No gaffe was bigger than Romney's remark — secretly recorded at a high-dollar Florida fundraiser — that he doesn't worry about 47 percent of Americans who "believe they are victims" and "pay no income tax."
On Friday, however, he hinted that he had learned his lesson.
Romney outlined three principles that could serve as the foundation of a campaign during a 15-minute speech, while referencing his work with the poor, sick and elderly as a volunteer church pastor — a topic he rarely addressed during his previous bids.
His new focus includes national security, improving opportunities for the middle class and "breaking the scourge of poverty."
"Our principles will bring opportunity to every American," Romney declared, adding, "It's a tragedy, a human tragedy, that the middle class in this country by and large doesn't believe that the future will be better than the past."
The growing field of first-time Republican presidential prospects was largely dismissive of Romney, while others questioned his ability to broaden his appeal in a third campaign.
"He just didn't attract a big enough constituency," Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said as he courted voters earlier in the day in Las Vegas.
Indeed, Romney struggled to win over younger voters, lower income voters and minorities on the way to a 2012 campaign loss that devastated his family and his party. Friends and foes alike concede he'll have to do more than change his message to win new supporters.
Paul on Friday repeated that he had been reaching out to ethnic and racial minorities for more than a year to broaden the GOP's appeal, where Romney had only recently admitted to past supporters that he needed to do better connecting with Hispanics and addressing the needs of the poor.
Paul cast himself as "someone who can reach out to the African-American community and the Hispanic community and the youth community and the working class and say, "You know what? We understand.'"
As Paul has taken steps toward running for president he has held public events in inner-city communities, including schools on Chicago's south side.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, meanwhile, declared himself ready for another presidential run and said Romney's interest in a 2016 bid "doesn't change my dynamic."
"It doesn't change my strategy," Perry said in an interview before Romney's speech.
Romney's team suggests he will make a decision about the 2016 campaign soon, both out of fairness to the other candidates contemplating bids and former allies who had begun to move on. Former Gov. Florida Jeb Bush began phoning leading officials in New Hampshire this week, with similar calls planned for Iowa — the first and second states on the presidential nominating calendar.
"While I have a lot of respect for Gov. Romney, and you know I think he is imminently qualified to serve as president, I think there's going to have to be a vetting process in New Hampshire again," said Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., a major Romney supporter in 2012 who was among those on Bush's recent call list.
"I want to know what's his vision for the country, just like I'm going to want to know from every candidate, so I think this field is wide open still," she said.
___
Associated Press writers Ken Ritter in Las Vegas and Kathleen Ronayne in Concord, New Hampshire, contributed to this report. | Mitt Romney spoke to the Republican National Committee last night and sounded very much like a candidate trying to erase an image of being rich and out of touch, reports AP. Consider these quotes: “Under President Obama, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse and there are more people in poverty than ever before." “It’s a tragedy—a human tragedy—that the middle class in this country by and large doesn’t believe the future won’t be better than the past or their kids will have a brighter future of their own. People want to see rising wages and they deserve them.” “First, we have to make the world safer. Second, we have to make sure and provide opportunity for all Americans regardless of the neighborhood they live in. And finally, we have to lift people out of poverty." The Washington Post sees the emphasis on poverty and the middle class as "a dramatic departure from the themes he sounded in losing the 2012 campaign to President Obama." Time writes that he "sought to cast himself as a champion of the nation’s poor." So is he, in fact, running? Romney would say only that he's giving it "serious consideration." The New York Times, meanwhile, reports that wife Ann, who was once adamantly opposed to another run, seems to have come around to the "maybe" camp. "She knows where my heart is," Romney told the crowd last night. |
Energy and Water Development funding for FY2009 was included in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 ( P.L. 111-8 ). Appropriations for these programs in P.L. 111-8 totaled $40.549 billion, including $7.5 billion for Advanced Technical Vehicles Manufacturing Loans in the Department of Energy. In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the "Stimulus" Act, P.L. 111-5 ) included $44.325 billion to fund numerous programs in the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy, to be expended in FY2009 and FY2010. President Obama's proposed FY2010 budget for Energy and Water Development programs was released in May 2009. The House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development marked up the FY2010 bill on June 25, 2009, and the full committee voted to report the bill ( H.R. 3183 , H.Rept. 111-203 ) on July 8. The House passed the bill, including several amendments, July 17. The Senate subcommittee marked up its bill July 8, and the full Senate Appropriations Committee reported the bill ( S. 1436 , S.Rept. 111-45 ) on July 9. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 3183 , incorporating the provisions of S. 1436 , with amendments, on July 29. The Conference Committee reported out H.R. 3183 on September 30 ( H.Rept. 111-278 ) and the House passed it October 1 and the Senate October 15. It was signed by the President October 28 ( P.L. 111-85 ). The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for civil works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior's Central Utah Project (CUP) and Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations enacted for FY2002 to FY2009. Table 3 lists totals for each of the bill's four titles. It also lists the total of several scorekeeping adjustments. Tables 4 through 1 4 provide budget details for Title I (Corps of Engineers), Title II (Department of the Interior), Title III (Department of Energy), and Title IV (independent agencies) for FY2009-FY2010. Accompanying these tables is a discussion of the key issues involved in the major programs in the four titles. In most years, the budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers is below the agency's final appropriations. The conference report would appropriate $5.445 billion, which is $0.320 billion above the Obama Administration's budget request of $5.125 billion and $0.043 billion above the $5.402 billion appropriated for FY2009. The House bill would have appropriated $5.540 billion; the Senate bill would have appropriated $5.405 billion. Regular annual appropriations for the Corps' civil works activities have been regularly augmented since Hurricane Katrina, through supplemental appropriations and through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. For example, in the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-252 ), the agency received $5.761 billion in FY2009 funds for Louisiana hurricane protection. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided an additional $4.6 billion to the agency for FY2009 and FY2010. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009, P.L. 111-32 , provided the Corps $0.797 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations. Unlike highways and municipal water infrastructure programs, federal funds for the Corps are not distributed to states or projects based on a formula or delivered via a competitive program. Generally about 85% of the appropriations for the Corps' civil works activities is directed to specific projects. Many of these projects are identified in the budget request, and others are added during congressional deliberations of the agency's appropriations. As a result, the agency's funding is often part of the debate over earmarks. Generally, appropriations are not provided to studies, projects, or activities that have not been previously authorized, typically in a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Estimates of the backlog of authorized projects vary from $11 billion to more than $80 billion, depending on which projects are included (e.g., those that meet Administration budget criteria, those that have received funding in recent appropriations, those that have never received appropriations). The backlog raises policy questions, such as whether there is a disconnect between the authorization and appropriations processes, and how to prioritize among authorized activities. The Obama Administration's request for the Corps includes new starts (i.e., activities not previously funded). For example, the request includes five new, but previously authorized, construction projects. This contrasts with the George W. Bush Administration's policy generally opposing new starts in order to focus funds on completing ongoing activities. Congress funded new starts during the G.W. Bush years. The House bill supports the Obama Administration's request on new starts and adds 20 new projects not requested by the Administration. The Senate Appropriations Committee concluded in its report ( S.Rept. 111-45 , p. 15) that new starts in the current budget environment would be imprudent. It is unclear how many new starts are in the H.Rept. 111-278 . The Inland Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF) has a looming deficit; needed funding for eligible ongoing work has exceeded the incoming collections. Collections have been roughly $100 million per year, but the outlays more than $200 million. Current law establishes the expenses associated with construction and major rehabilitation of inland waterways as a federal responsibility (i.e., no local cost-share), with 50% of the federal monies coming from the IWTF and 50% from the federal general revenue fund. The IWTF monies derive from a fuel tax (not indexed for inflation) imposed on vessels engaged in commercial transportation on designated waterways, plus investment interest on the balance. The Obama Administration's budget request included a legislative proposal to authorize a lock usage fee to replace the current fuel tax, which previously had been proposed by the Bush Administration. This proposal is included in neither the House nor the Senate bill. The House identified addressing the insolvency of the IWTF as the most immediate navigation need, but did not include legislative language to address the need. The Senate Committee report discussed alternatives to the Administration's proposal, but it did not propose legislative changes. Instead, S.Rept. 111-45 stated: "A solution to this problem must be developed with the users of the system, the Corps and the appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress." The conference report directed the Administration to report by April 2010 on the status of the fund and to identify a list of priority projects with supporting information. Like the House bill and the Senate bill, the conference bill would prohibit funds in the bill to be used for awarding any new continuing contracts that commit additional IWTF funds until the insolvency issue has been resolved. The Corps plays a significant coordination role in the restoration of the Central and Southern Florida ecosystem. In addition to funding for Corps activities through Energy and Water Development appropriations, federal activities in the Everglades are also funded through Department of the Interior appropriations bills. Concerns regarding the level of appropriations across the federal agencies and the State of Florida and progress in the restoration effort are discussed in CRS Report RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. The FY2010 Obama Administration request for the Corps' south Florida Everglades restoration work totals $214.5 million. The conference bill provides $180 million for Everglades restoration. The House bill would have appropriated $210.2 million for Everglades restoration; the Senate bill would have provided $163.4 million. None of the bills would appropriate funds to the Modified Water Deliveries Project, with the direction for the project to be funded through the Department of Interior. The Corps is responsible for much of the repair and fortification of the hurricane protection system of coastal Louisiana, particularly in the New Orleans area. To date, most of the Corps' work on the region's hurricane protection system has been funded through $15 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations, not through the annual appropriations process. In addition to the post-hurricane emergency repairs, these funds are being used for construction of levees, floodwalls, storm surge barriers, and pump improvements to reduce the hurricane flooding risk to the New Orleans area to a 100-year level of protection (i.e., protection against a storm surge of an intensity that has 1% probability of occurring in a given year) and to restore and complete hurricane protection in surrounding areas to previously authorized levels of protection by 2011. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009, P.L. 111-32 , provided the Corps $0.439 billion in supplemental FY2009 appropriations for barrier island restoration and ecosystem restoration for the Mississippi Gulf Coast. The Obama Administration requested $42.0 million for the Central Utah Project (CUP) Completion Account, the same amount as appropriated for FY2009. The FY2010 request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $1,020.7 million in gross current budget authority. This amount is $55.1 million less than enacted for FY2009. The FY2010 request included an "offset" of $35.1 million for the Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration Fund (Congress does not list this line item as an offset), yielding a "net" discretionary authority of $985.7 million. Another $117.3 million is estimated to be available for FY2010 via "permanent and other" funds, for a grand total of $1.1 billion for FY2010. The total discretionary budget request (not including the CVPRF offset) for Title II funding—Central Utah Project and Reclamation—is $1.06 billion. The House-passed bill includes approximately $1.08 billion for Title II funding; the Senate bill would appropriate $1.17 billion. The conference report includes approximately $1.13 billion, slightly more than enacted under the regular appropriations bill for FY2009. Reclamation's single largest account, Water and Related Resources, encompasses the agency's traditional programs and projects, including construction, operations and maintenance, the Dam Safety Program, Water and Energy Management Development, and Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, among others. The Obama Administration requested $893.1 million for the Water and Related Resources Account for FY2010. This amount is $27.1 million (approximately 3%) less than enacted for FY2009. The House bill includes $910.3 million for the Water and Related Resources Account—roughly $17 million more than requested; the Senate bill would appropriate $993.1 million—$100 million more than requested. The conference agreement includes $951.2 million for the account, roughly $31.0 million more than enacted in the FY2009 regular appropriations bill and approximately $58 million more than requested for FY2010. Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the West were built by, or with the assistance of, Reclamation. Whereas the Army Corps of Engineers built hundreds of flood control and navigation projects, Reclamation's mission was to develop water supplies, primarily for irrigation to reclaim arid lands in the West. Today, Reclamation manages hundreds of dams and diversion projects, including more than 300 storage reservoirs in 17 western states. These projects provide water to approximately 10 million acres of farmland and a population of 31 million. Reclamation is the largest wholesale supplier of water in the 17 western states and the second-largest hydroelectric power producer in the nation. Reclamation facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. At the same time, operations of Reclamation facilities are often controversial, particularly for their effect on fish and wildlife species and conflicts among competing water users. As with the Corps of Engineers, the Reclamation budget is made up largely of individual project funding and relatively few "programs." The House Committee on Appropriations noted that despite Reclamation's past achievements, the agency has become a "caretaker agency" and has not exerted leadership in the provision of water supply or maintaining the West's existing water supply infrastructure. The House Appropriations Committee notes that the combined challenges of balancing competing needs, increasing demand for water supply, and changing hydrology will require active leadership in western water resource management. The CVP in California is one of Reclamation's largest and most complex water projects. Recently, Reclamation has had to limit water deliveries and pumping from CVP facilities due to drought and other factors, including environmental restrictions. This action has resulted in several amendments including attempts to prevent Reclamation from implementing new Biological Opinions (BiOps) on the effect of project operations on certain fish species. For example, Representative Calvert offered an amendment to prohibit Reclamation or any state agency from restricting operations of the CVP or State Water Project (SWP) due to recent BiOps on project operations. The two BiOps in question have found that continued operation of the projects under a plan developed and implemented in 2004 (Operations Criteria and Plan (OCAP)) would jeopardize the existence of both Delta Smelt and salmon (and other) species in California. These species are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act. OCAP allowed increased pumping from the Delta, which some believe has further imperiled fish species listed as threatened or endangered under ESA long before the increased pumping plan went into effect. Others note that other factors such as invasive species, pollution, and non-federal withdrawals of water from the Delta have contributed to fishery declines. Critically low numbers of Delta Smelt resulted in a court-imposed limit on pumping at certain times and more recently, a new review of project operations and impacts on the economy and species. In the meantime, low water deliveries to certain water districts (e.g., those with junior water rights) are exacerbating unemployment in an area with an economy already challenged by changes in the farming industry, the downturn in housing and financial sectors, and the economy in general. The Calvert amendment was defeated by a vote of 25 to 33. Similar amendments were proposed for several other appropriations bills, in the House. And a similar amendment via a motion to recommit the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill in the Senate was not successful. However, two other amendments related to Delta pumping restrictions passed during House consideration of the bill: one providing an additional $10 million for the California Bay-Delta Restoration Program (changed to $9 million in conference), and another including language to facilitate water transfers. The latter amendment was subsequently modified and appears as Section 211 of the conference agreement, providing for a two-year authorization of water transfers among certain CVP contractors without meeting particular conditions established by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34 of P.L. 102-575 ). The Administration requested $31.0 million for the California Bay-Delta Restoration Account (Bay-Delta, or CALFED) for FY2010. This request is $9.0 million less than the $40.0 million enacted for FY2009. The bulk of the requested funds is targeted at five program areas: (1) water use efficiency ($5.0 million); (2) water quality ($5.0 million); (3) water storage ($4.05 million); (4) conveyance ($4.1 million); and ecosystem restoration ($7.85 million). The remainder of the request is allocated for science, planning, and management activities. In a departure from previous years, the Administration requested no funding for the "Environmental Water Account" and instead applied $5.0 million of the FY2010 CALFED request to "water use efficiency," $3.0 million of which is for the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. In prior years, such recycling programs and projects (Title XVI projects) have been included in the Water and Related Resources Account. Funding for three CALFED subaccounts declined substantially (storage, conveyance, and EWA), while funding for water use efficiency and ecosystem restoration increased substantially. (For more information on CALFED, see CRS Report RL31975, CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional and Water Use Issues , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].) The conference agreement provides $40 million for CALFED, which is $9 million more than requested, but $1 million less than recommended in the House and Senate bills. The conference agreement provides $35.4 million for the CVPRF; the same amount as requested for FY2010. The conference agreement also includes a provision (Section 210) extending the CALFED authorization from 2010 to 2014. Requested funding for both the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF) and CALFED are lower than for FY2009. The House Appropriations Committee notes that the lower amount for the CVPRF is done to meet a statutory requirement to limit the three-year rolling average to no more than $50 million and does not represent an intent to reduce funding in future years. Both funds serve areas in California experiencing water supply reductions due to drought, as well as pumping restrictions due to stress on state- and federally listed fish species. Reclamation proposed an allocation of $15.9 million for the newly authorized San Joaquin River Restoration Fund for FY2010. The Fund was authorized by the enactment of Title X of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-11 ), the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Fund is to be used to implement fisheries restoration and water management provisions of a stipulated settlement agreement for the Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. Rodgers lawsuit and is to be funded through the combination of a reallocation of approximately $7.5 million annually in Central Valley Project Restoration Fund receipts from the Friant Division water users and accelerated payment of Friant water users' capital repayment obligations, as well as other federal and non-federal sources. Reclamation notes that "significant actions planned for initiation in FY2010 include releasing interim flows from Friant Dam and completion of a permit application for the reintroduction of spring-run Chinook salmon into the San Joaquin River for consideration by the National Marine Fisheries Service." Construction of Friant Dam in the 1940s and subsequent diversion of San Joaquin River water to off-stream agricultural uses blocked salmon migration and dewatered stretches of the San Joaquin, resulting in elimination of spring-run Chinook into the upper reaches of the river. One goal of the settlement is to bring back the salmon run; another is to reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to Friant Division long-term contractors. (For more information on the settlement agreement and the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, see CRS Report R40125, Title X of H.R. 146: San Joaquin River Restoration , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].) The Senate bill would appropriate $7.0 million in CVP funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration, to be used in conjunction with and in advance of funds available from the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund. The conference agreement includes $5.0 million for this purpose. Reclamation proposed funding for a new program for FY2010—a Water Conservation Initiative (WCI). The proposal is similar to components of a program funded in FY2009—the Water for America Initiative. P.L. 111-8 provided $15.1 million for the Reclamation portion of the Water for America Initiative line item for FY2009 (the USGS was also to receive funding under the initiative); an additional $20.1 million was included for Endangered Species Recovery Implementation. The FY2010 request does not mention the Water for America Initiative. Instead, it includes a request of $46 million for the WCI, which includes $37 million for two components of last year's Water for America initiative (challenge grants and basin studies), and $9 million to fund portions of seven Title XVI projects (not included as part of the Water for America Initiative last year). The Water for America Initiative subsumed two previously existing Reclamation programs: Water 2025 (challenge grants) and the Water Conservation Field Services program. The House Committee on Appropriations report did not discuss the WCI; however, the report notes that $100,000 will be provided for each Title XVI project pending the announcement of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5 ) funding and accurate projections of project needs. Reclamation has announced $134.3 million in ARRA funding for 27 projects—26 of which are in California. The Senate Committee on Appropriations encourages Reclamation to work with a lab at Utah State University to expand water quality monitoring among other things, as does the conference agreement. The Energy and Water Development bill has funded all DOE's programs since FY2005. Major DOE activities historically funded by the Energy and Water bill include research and development on renewable energy and nuclear power, general science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear weapons programs, and the bill now includes programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and energy statistics, which formerly had been included in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The FY2009 appropriations acts funded DOE programs at $34.2 billion. This sum included $7.5 billion for Advanced Technical Vehicles Manufacturing Loans, appropriated in the Continuing Resolution, P.L. 110-329 . In addition, the ARRA ( P.L. 111-5 ) appropriated $38.7 billion for selected DOE programs: primarily Conservation and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery, Fossil Energy R&D, Science, and Environmental Clean-up. DOE administers a wide variety of programs with different functions and missions. In the following pages, the most important programs are described and major issues are identified, in approximately the order in which they appear in Table 7 . In President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on February 24, 2009, he stressed that energy policy—in particular energy efficiency and renewable energy policy—would be a major focus of his Administration, which would be reflected in the FY2010 budget request. In the address, he stated that humankind's "survival depends on finding new sources of energy" and that one of the major functions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5 ) was designed to boost jobs for renewable energy industries such as wind and solar energy. DOE's FY2010 request seeks $2.3186 billion for the EERE programs. Compared with the FY2009 appropriation, the FY2010 request would increase EERE funding by $390.1 million, or 20.2%. In addition to the regular FY2009 appropriation, however, the ARRA appropriated $17.05 billion (including $250 million provided for the Weatherization Program in P.L. 110-329 ) for EERE programs, and an additional $4.5 billion for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. Table 8 gives the programmatic breakdown of the regular appropriations and the ARRA supplement for EERE and EDER. The ARRA emphasizes jobs, economic recovery, and assistance to those most impacted by the recession. The law provides $16.8 billion for several program accounts under EERE, which must be obligated during FY2009 and FY2010. In particular, it provides $2.5 billion for the R&D programs, including $800 million for the Biomass Program, $400 million for the Geothermal Program, $118 million for Wind Energy, $50 million for Industrial Technologies, $43.4 million for Fuel Cell Technologies (formerly Hydrogen Technologies), $87.2 million for Facilities and Infrastructure, and $50 million for Program Direction. Further, the law provides $11.3 billion for grant programs, including $5.0 billion for the Weatherization Grants Program, $3.1 billion for the State Energy Program, and $3.2 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program—a new program authorized by Title V of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). Additionally, the law provides about $3.65 billion in transportation related grants, including $2.0 billion for Advanced Battery Manufacturing, $400 million for Transportation Electrification, $300 million for Alternative Fueled Vehicles. Also, the law provides $4.5 billion to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability for grid modernization and related technologies, especially transmission development to support renewable energy. That amount includes funds for the smart grid and grid modernization provisions in the EISA (Title 13). The $390.1 million difference between the regular FY2009 appropriation and the FY2010 request results from several proposed increases and decreases for EERE programs. The request proposes one major increase, $115 million, that would create a new science and engineering education program entitled Regaining our Energy Science and Engineering Edge (RE-ENERGYSE). Other major proposed program funding increases would go to Solar Technologies ($145 million), Building Technologies ($97.7 million), Vehicle Technologies ($60.1 million), and State Energy grants ($25.0 million). Other proposed major cuts would include Congressionally-Directed Activities (-$228.8 million) and Fuel Cells (-$100.7 million). Smaller proposed program cuts would include Facilities (-$13.0 million), Water Technologies (-$10.0 million), and Renewable Deployment (-$10.0 million). The House bill includes $2.250 billion for EERE, which is $321.5 million more than the FY2009 appropriation and $68.6 million less than the FY2010 request. Compared with the request, the House bill would provide major increases for Congressionally Directed Activities ($157.6 million) and for Vehicle Technologies ($40.0 million). The bill decreases RE-ENERGYSE by 107.5 million, Program Management by $69.1 million, Solar Technologies by $61.3 million, and Building Technologies by $27.2 million. In floor action, the House approved a $15.0 million increase over the reported bill, including $10.0 million more for the Water Power Technologies program and $5.0 million more for the Vehicle Technologies program, targeted for natural gas vehicles. The Senate bill would appropriate $2.233 billion for EERE, $304.5 million more than the FY2009 appropriation and $17.0 million less than the House bill. Compared with the House bill, the Senate bill would provide a major increase for Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Technologies ($121.8 million) and significant increases for Water Power Technologies ($30.0 million) and Wind Technologies ($15.0 million). The Senate bill would zero out the DOE-proposed RE-ENERGYSE program. Compared to the House bill, the Senate would decrease Program Management by $64.4.5 million, Vehicle Technologies by $50.0 million, state energy grants by $25.0 million, and weatherization grants by $20.0 million. In floor action, the Senate approved an amendment to the reported bill that would designate $15.0 million of the funding for Industrial Programs for technical assistance grants. The request would nearly triple spending for the Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) program and proposed three new solar subprogram focus areas: Systems Integration, Market Transformation, and the Solar Electricity Energy Innovation Hub. Two new subprogram activities would garner most (about $39 million) of the $54.1 million increase proposed for CSP funding. About $17 million would be provided for a high-temperature baseload power activity, which aims to develop CSP systems capable of operating competitively in the baseload power market by 2020. Meeting this goal would require CSP systems that operate at higher temperatures, which elevates system efficiency and enables cost reductions for thermal storage. About $22 million would be provided for a "Pilot Solar Zone." Under this activity, a land parcel would be developed in a way that facilitates the construction of utility-scale solar projects. The activity calls for DOE cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and solar developers to devise a model for addressing infrastructure (roads, water, transmission linkages) and conducting environmental studies. The Systems Integration subprogram would receive a boost of $17.5 million to cover three main activities. System Modeling and Analysis assesses potential annual energy production based on pilot (model) projects, for example, photovoltaic system operations in a region with cloudy weather. Grid Integration activities focus on enabling high-penetration solar integration into end-use locations and the power grid, with an emphasis on life-cycle costs for inverters, storage, and other equipment. Grid access for CSP will be a key focus too. Resource and Safety activities aim to improve solar resource mapping and help industry select sites. Market Transformation, a completely new subprogram, would aim to help reduce solar power costs and promote commercial use of solar technologies by identifying and breaking down market barriers and promoting deployment through stakeholder outreach. Some targeted areas of market barriers include interconnection standards, net metering, utility policies, solar access laws, policymaker understanding of solar technologies, and international safety issues. The subprogram would also aim to promote large-scale solar deployment. The Solar America Cities activity would assist 25 U.S. cities that have committed to using solar power by addressing implementation issues such as financing, permitting, city planning, stakeholder engagement, and grid integration. Also, the Solar America Showcases activity would provide technical assistance (not hardware purchases) to large-scale, high-visibility installations, such as new building communities, big box retailer installations, and utility-scale solar. The Solar Policy and Analysis Network (SPAN) is a new market transformation activity proposed for launch in FY2010. SPAN would help fulfill the need for analysis on local, state, regional, national, and international policies that promote solar market transformation by tapping into the expertise of the Nation's universities. In addition, SPAN aims to further solar professional development by attracting and educating a new generation of university students who can join the solar industry in various capacities. Energy Innovation Hubs would address the basic science, technology, economics, and policy issues hindering the ability to become energy secure and economically strong while being good stewards of the planet by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The main focus of the Hub is to push the current state-of-the-art energy science and technology toward fundamental limits and support high-risk, high-reward research projects that produce revolutionary changes in how the United States produces and uses energy. The objective is to focus a high-quality team of researchers on a specific question and to encourage risk taking that can produce real breakthroughs. The Solar Electricity Energy Innovation Hub would be devoted to the discovery and design of wholly new concepts and materials needed by solar to electricity conversion. The House bill would provide $258.7 million for Solar programs, about $61.3 million less than the request. No funding would be provided for the Solar Electricity Energy Innovation Hub. More generally, the Appropriations Committee's report expressed concern with DOE's proposal to establish eight Energy Innovation Hubs. The Committee found that the proposed new group of centers would have goals that overlap with other existing centers, which could lead to "confusion and redundancy." Further, the Committee found that there has been insufficient development of plans and implementation details for the proposed Hubs. However, the Committee said that it otherwise "believes that the Hubs are a promising concept," and it recommended $35 million to establish one Hub under the Office of Science. The Senate bill would appropriate $255.0 million for Solar Technologies. From the amount provided, the report directed DOE to provide $30.0 million for Concentrating Solar. Also, the Committee "encourages" DOE to support R&D on "innovative textiles," such as solar cell roofing shingles. The Committee directed DOE to develop the PV Manufacturing Initiative consistent with the findings of workshops being conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. It also encouraged DOE to use an existing facility for the Initiative. In floor action, the Senate adopted the Committee's funding recommendations. The conference report would appropriate $225.0 for the Solar Technologies Program. Funding would be provided for Concentrating Solar. No funding would be provided for the Solar Electricity Energy Innovation Hub. Of the $97.7 million increase proposed for the Building Technologies program, the Emerging Technologies subprogram would get nearly half ($48.9 million). Within that subprogram, the proposed creation of an Energy Innovation Hub would get $35.0 million. The main focus of the Hub would be on energy efficient building systems design. This Hub would work on integrating smart materials, designs, and systems to tune building usage to better conserve energy, as well as maximizing the functioning of lighting, heating, air conditioning, and electricity to reduce energy demand. Other areas of interest include improved exterior shell materials, membranes of energy efficient windows, insulation, improved approaches to building design, systems control, and energy distribution networks. The Residential Buildings Integration subprogram would get an increase of $18.1 million. The main goal is to develop cost effective, production-ready systems in five major climate zones that result in houses that produce as much energy as they use on an annual basis. The Zero Energy Home (ZEH) initiative in residential sector research would bring a new concept to homebuilders. A ZEH combines state-of-the-art, energy efficient construction and appliances with commercially available renewable energy systems such as solar water heating and solar electricity. The ZEH also has a cost component goal of net zero financial cost to the home owner. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended no funds for the proposed Equipment Standards and Analysis Hub. In floor action, the Senate approved the Committee's recommendation. The conference report recommends $200.0 million and noted that $27.0 million should be provided for solid state R&D from within available funds. No funding would be provided for the Energy Efficient Building Systems Design Innovation Hub. Of the $60.1 million requested increase, the largest share (a net increase of nearly $39.0 million) would go to Hybrid Electric Systems. This subprogram includes all of the Vehicle Program efforts directly related to the planning and modeling, development, and evaluation of advanced hybrid (HEV), electric, and plug-in hybrid (PHEV) drive systems. The Hybrid Electric Systems subprogram funds R&D on advanced (passenger and commercial) vehicle technologies that could achieve significant improvements in fuel economy without sacrificing safety, the environment, performance, or affordability. Primary emphasis is given to the technologies that support development of advanced HEVs and PHEVs. Within that subprogram, the Vehicle and Systems Simulation and Testing (VSST) activity would grow by about $32.2 million. This activity integrates the modeling, systems analysis, and testing efforts that support the Vehicle Program. The FY2010 increase would support expanded heavy vehicle systems modeling and development of technologies to reduce commercial vehicles' "parasitic" energy losses due to aerodynamic drag, friction and wear, under-hood thermal conditions, and accessory loads. It will also support increased testing of both commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles. A portion of the increase will also be used to expand the laboratory and field evaluation of advanced prototype and pre-production electric drive vehicles with dual energy storage systems and other advanced energy storage devices, electric motor and power electronics. VSST will also expand the evaluation of advanced HEVs and PHEVs in medium and heavy duty uses such as school buses, urban delivery vehicles, and transit buses. Also within the Hybrid Electric Systems subprogram, the Advanced Power Electronics and Electric Motor R&D activity would get an increase of about $12.7 million. In FY2010, a new solicitation would be issued to fund industry R&D efforts to develop power electronics and electric motors associated with increased vehicle electrification. DOE states that electrification of light-duty vehicles has great potential to reduce dependence on oil imports, and advanced power electronics and electric motors are critical components for the successful deployment of advanced vehicles. The awards would enable substantial reductions in cost, weight, and volume, while ensuring a domestic supply chain. Emphasis would be placed on R&D for advanced packaging, enhanced reliability, and improved manufacturability. Awards would also accelerate the technology transfer from research organizations to domestic manufacturers and suppliers. The activity also supports R&D on inverters and motors (permanent magnet (PM) and non-PM), DC-to-DC converters, low-cost magnet materials, high temperature capacitors, advanced thermal systems, and motor control systems. Work would be expanded to address the more stringent performance requirements for PHEVs, including using the power electronics to provide plug-in capability by integrating the battery charging function into the traction drive, thereby reducing electric propulsion system cost. Activities focusing on advanced materials will be enhanced to enable the production of prototype devices to accelerate the process of transferring research results to device manufacturers. The House bill would appropriate $40 million above the request. This increase would support technologies for hydrogen transportation, in order to continue activities that the request would eliminate from the former Hydrogen Technologies Program which DOE identified as the Fuel Cell Technologies Program. In floor action, the House approved the Committee's recommendation. However, a floor amendment added $5.0 million targeted for the development of natural gas vehicles. The Senate bill would zero out the Fuel Cells account, but would provide $190.0 million for the Hydrogen Technologies account and directed that DOE fund Fuel Cell work from that account. The conference report would provide $7.5 million for coordination with the Biomass Program to support testing of intermediate fuel blends of ethanol and gasoline; $5.0 million for natural gas vehicle R&D, and $2.2 million (within available funds) for an analysis of light-duty vehicle transportation. The report does not include $40.0 million for hydrogen (as proposed by the House) and it does not include a study of recharging options (as proposed by the Senate). The House Appropriations Committee report calls on DOE to continue the effort to study the "green job economy," including the employment and macroeconomic effects of funding for DOE's clean energy programs. Also, it directs DOE to "continue implementing an aggressive program" to recruit staff from Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions. The Senate Appropriations Committee report includes numerous directives for EERE. There appear to be four key directives. First, the Committee directs that at least $35 million be provided for an RD&D strategy focused on algae biofuels. In particular, the Committee finds that algae could support large-scale biofuels production on non-arable land, using non-potable water, and potentially provide for the re-use of industrial carbon dioxide. Second, the Committee directs that the Wind Energy Program work with the Office of Electricity (OE) to increase deployment nationwide. Third, if DOE is able to fund certain facilities projects with money from ARRA, then the Committee said it would support DOE in using $44 million to fund its proposed Fuels from Sunlight and Energy Efficient Building Systems hubs at $22 million each. Fourth, from available funds under the Weatherization Program, the Committee directs DOE to use $35 million for a pilot project to improve home insulation and sealing in homes built before 1980 and $35 million for a pilot project that aims to use public private partnerships to increase the leverage of federal funds from less than even to $3 private for each $1 federal. Several other program directives would "carve out" funds for specific projects or studies, including ethanol use, water power technologies, geothermal technologies, and renewable energy demonstrations in Hawaii and on tropical biomass farms. The conference report would direct that at least $35.0 million be made available, from within available funds, to prepare a comprehensive strategy for R&D and deployment algae biofuels. It would require DOE to prepare a five-year R&D plan for water power technologies. Also, the report would provide $292.1 million for congressionally directed activities. The report does not include a House-proposed reporting requirement to track the progress and impact of EERE investments. The FY2010 request would provide $208.0 million to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE), which would be a $71.0 million (51.8%) increase above the FY2009 appropriation (excluding the ARRA funding). The increase is designed to coordinate with a major restructuring of the accounts to include four new major programs: Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability, Smart Grid R&D, Energy Storage, and Cyber Security for Energy Delivery Systems. The House bill provision is identical to the request. In floor action, the House reduced the OE recommendation to $193.0 million. The Senate bill would appropriate $179.6 million. The Committee recommended no funding for the Grid Materials, Devices, and Systems Hub and would provide $6.5 million for congressionally directed activities. The conference report would provide $172.0 million for OE. No funds would be provided for the Grid Materials, Devices, and Systems Hub. The Obama Administration's FY2010 funding request for nuclear energy research and development totals $761.3 million—including advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology, infrastructure support, and security. The House provided $812.0 million, $50.4 million above the request and $20.0 million above the FY2009 level. The total FY2010 funding level approved by the Senate is the same as the Administration request. According to DOE's FY2010 budget justification, the nuclear energy R&D program includes "generation, safety, waste storage and management, and security technologies, to help meet energy and climate goals." However, opponents have criticized DOE's nuclear research program as providing wasteful subsidies to an industry that they believe should be phased out as unacceptably hazardous and economically uncompetitive. Although total funding in the FY2010 nuclear energy request is similar to levels in previous years, the Obama Administration is calling for significant priority changes. Funding for the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which assists the near-term design and licensing of new nuclear power plants, would be largely eliminated. Research on producing hydrogen with nuclear reactors would stop entirely. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), which had been the primary research component of the Bush Administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), would be renamed Fuel Cycle Research and Development and shifted away from the design and construction of nuclear fuel recycling facilities toward an emphasis on longer-term research. The House Appropriations Committee report called for DOE to submit a strategic plan on balancing long-term nuclear R&D with near-term deployment of new reactors. Funding for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, which is to help dispose of surplus weapons plutonium, would be shifted from DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy to the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program. Under President Bush, DOE's initial efforts to encourage near-term construction of new commercial reactors—for which there have been no new U.S. orders since 1978—focused on the Nuclear Power 2010 Program. The program provided up to half the costs of licensing lead plant sites and reactors and preparing detailed reactor designs. Nuclear Power 2010 also includes the Standby Support Program, authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-58 ) to pay for regulatory delays that might be experienced by new reactors. The Obama Administration proposed to cut the Nuclear Power 2010 Program's funding from $177.5 million in FY2009 to $20 million in FY2010 and then terminate the program. Administration of the Standby Support Program was to continue under the Office of Nuclear Energy program direction account. The House approved a funding level of $71.0 million for the program, to "complete the Department's commitment to this effort." The Senate voted to provide $120 million for the program, with no mention of program termination. The conference agreement provides $105.0 million "as the final installment" for the Nuclear Power 2010 program. DOE's budget justification contended that industry interest in new nuclear power plants has now been demonstrated to the extent that federal funding is no longer needed. The $20 million requested for FY2010 was to provide the final assistance to an industry consortium called NuStart for licensing a new reactor at the Vogtle plant in Georgia. No further funding was to be provided for a second industry consortium led by Dominion Resources, or for the design of General Electric-Hitachi's ESBWR reactor or the Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor. "By FY 2010 sufficient momentum will have been created by the cost-shared programs that the vendors (GEH and Westinghouse) and other partners will have adequate incentive to complete any additional work through private funding," according to the DOE justification. Advanced commercial reactor technologies that are not yet close to deployment are the focus of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, for which $191.0 million was requested for FY2010, $11 million above the FY2009 appropriation. The budget request would have cut $24 million from activities previously conducted by the program, a reduction that "reflects the emphasis shifting from near-term R&D activities to those R&D activities aimed at long-term technology advances," according to the DOE justification. The request included $35 million to establish the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation, which would focus on computer assistance for the development, implementation, and management of nuclear power and radioactive waste. The House provided no funding for the Modeling and Simulation Hub, while boosting total Generation IV funding to $272.4 million. The Senate approved a funding level of $143 million, including the Modeling and Simulation Hub. The conference agreement provides $220.1 million, including $22.0 million for the Modeling and Simulation Hub. The focus in the budget request on "long-term technology advances" differed sharply from the program's previous emphasis on developing the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). Most of the FY2009 appropriation—$169.0 million—was for NGNP research and development. NGNP is currently planned to use Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) technology, which features helium as a coolant and coated-particle fuel that can withstand temperatures up to 1,600 degrees Celsius. Phase I research on the NGNP was to continue until 2011, when a decision was to be made on moving to the Phase II design and construction stage, according to the FY2009 DOE budget justification. In its recommendation on the FY2009 budget, the House Appropriations Committee had provided additional funding "to accelerate work" on NGNP. DOE's proposed FY2010 nuclear research program did not mention NGNP, although it included several research activities related to the development of VHTR technology, including fuel testing, graphite experiments, and development of VHTR simulation software. Fundamental research on other advanced reactor concepts, such as sodium-cooled fast reactors and molten salt reactors, were also to continue. For FY2010, the House Appropriations Committee report noted that NGNP had been one of its priorities and specified that at least $245.0 million of the Generation IV funding be devoted to the project. The Senate Appropriations Committee FY2010 report did not specifically mention NGNP, but it called for DOE to select two advanced reactor technologies as the focus of future research and potential deployment. The conference agreement provides $169.0 million for NGNP and directs DOE within 90 days to prepare a detailed plan for moving forward with the NGNP project. The conference agreement also provides $17.8 million for other Generation IV reactor concepts and $10.0 million for research on extending the lives of existing light water reactors. No funding is provided for gas centrifuge enrichment technology. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized $1.25 billion through FY2015 for NGNP development and construction (Title VI, Subtitle C). The authorization requires that NGNP be based on research conducted by the Generation IV program and be capable of producing electricity, hydrogen, or both. The act's target date for operation of the demonstration reactor is September 30, 2021. The FY2010 budget request anticipated that Generation IV reactors "could be available in the 2030 timeframe." Formerly called the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, DOE's Fuel Cycle Research and Development program is to be redirected from the development of engineering-scale and prototype reprocessing facilities toward smaller-scale "long-term, science-based research." The FY2010 budget request for the program was $192.0 million, nearly $50 million above the FY2009 level, although $35 million of that amount was to go toward establishing an Energy Innovation Hub for Extreme Materials. The House provided no funding for the Extreme Materials Hub and an overall reduction in the request to $129.2 million, citing "the lack of specificity in terms of the direction of the research in this area." The Senate provided $145.0 million, the same as FY2009, and no funding for the Extreme Materials Hub. The conference agreement provides $136.0 million, with nothing for the Extreme Materials Hub. According to the DOE budget justification, Fuel Cycle R&D will continue previous research on technology that could reduce the long-term hazard of spent nuclear fuel. Such technologies would involve separation of plutonium, uranium, and other long-lived radioactive materials from spent fuel for reuse in a nuclear reactor or for transmutation in a particle accelerator. DOE plans to broaden the program to include waste storage technologies, security systems, and alternative disposal options such as salt formations and deep boreholes. R&D will also focus on needs identified by a planned DOE nuclear waste strategy panel, according to the justification. In previous years, AFCI had been the primary technology component of the Bush Administration's GNEP program, including R&D on reprocessing technology and fast reactors that could use reprocessed plutonium. Funding for GNEP was eliminated by Congress in FY2009 and GNEP was not mentioned in the FY2010 budget request, although, as noted above, much of the related R&D work is to continue at a smaller scale. The Energy Innovation Hub for Extreme Materials was intended to support fundamental research on advanced materials for use in high-radiation and high-temperature environments. Such materials could improve the performance of nuclear waste packages, allow advances in nuclear reactor designs, and improve the safety and operation of existing commercial reactors, according to the budget justification. (For more information about nuclear reprocessing, see CRS Report RL34579, Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options , by [author name scrubbed].) The Obama Administration proposed to complete work being conducted under the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative in FY2009 and provide no further funding in FY2010. The program, which received $7.5 million in FY2009, had been developing processes for producing hydrogen in nuclear reactors for use in transportation fuel cells and other applications. According to the DOE budget justification, funding for the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative will be shifted to "higher priority activities that are more directly related to the [Nuclear Energy Office] mission, such as waste management and storage, materials, and simulation." Both the House and the Senate agreed to zero out the program, as does the conference agreement. For FY2010, the Obama Administration requested $617.6 million for Fossil Energy Research and Development; which represents a 29.5% decrease ($258.8 million) from the FY2009 appropriation ( Table 9 ). The FY2010 request, however, is supplemented by $3.4 billion appropriated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA— P.L. 111-5 ), which is to be expended in FY2009 and FY2010. No new funding has been requested for the Clean Coal Technology program, under the justification that all project funding commitments have been fulfilled and only project closeout activities remain. No funding has been requested for the Clean Coal Power Initiative in FY2010 because of appropriations provided under ARRA. No funding has been requested for the FutureGen project pending a program review. The project was originally intended to demonstrate clean coal-based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power generation with capture and sequestration of CO 2 emissions. However, in early 2008, after cost estimates for the project escalated to $1.8 billion, the Bush Administration restructured the program to focus exclusively on commercial application of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies for IGCC or other advanced clean coal-based power generation technology. Under a "Restructured FutureGen" program, DOE proposed a cost-shared collaboration with industry and anticipated making a number of awards ranging from $100 million to $600 million (DOE share). For FY2009, the House Appropriations Committee directed DOE to merge FutureGen and the Clean Coal Power Initiative into a single solicitation for a Carbon Capture Demonstration Initiative, and that account was funded in ARRA at $1.52 billion. The FY2010 request has no funding for the Carbon Capture Initiative. The President's request for Fuels and Power has been reduced $288.5 million (42%) from the prior year appropriation. No funding has been requested for Oil Technology under the justification that it is the Obama administration's policy not to fund government R&D for petroleum. The $29.9 million increase in the request for Carbon Sequestration supports an Energy Innovation Hub. The $25 million requested for Natural Gas represents a 25% increase over the prior year appropriation (the Bush administration had requested no funding). The $158 million requested for Program Direction represents a 4% increase of the prior year appropriation, not counting the additional $10 million appropriated under ARRA. The House bill would appropriate $617.6 million for the Fossil Energy R&D program, the same as the President's budget request. However, the bill would reduce the carbon sequestration research by $35 million below the request, and would not fund the proposed Energy Innovation Hub. The bill also adds $25.45 million above the request for the Fuels program to fund research into the production of high purity hydrogen from coal. The Senate bill would appropriate $699.2 million for Fossil Energy R&D, a 13.2% increase over the President's budget request. The bill provided no funds for the Clean Coal Power Initiative and FutureGen because of substantial increases in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The bill's $428.2 million for fuels and power systems is $24.3 million above the request, but Carbon Sequestration has been reduced $19.7 million below the request. The bill includes $5 million for Cooperative Research and Development. In the Conference Report that accompanies H.R. 3183 , conferees agree to provide $672.4 million for Fossil Energy R&D, out of which $36.9 million applies to Congressionally Directed Fossil Energy Projects. This represents a 23% ($204 million) reduction compared to FY2009's appropriation. Fuels and Power Systems, in particular, would receive $288.4 million less. In the FY2009 Appropriations ( P.L. 111-8 ), $876.3 million was appropriated for fossil energy research and development, of which $149.0 million is to be derived by transfer from Clean Coal Technology. Of that total, $288.2 million is available for the Clean Coal Power Initiative Round III solicitation. Furthermore, $43.9 million of the appropriated amount is to be used for projects specified as Congressionally Directed Fossil Energy Projects. Under ARRA, $3.4 billion was appropriated for DOE fossil energy programs in FY2009. Funds under this heading include $1.0 billion for fossil energy research and development programs; $800.0 million for additional amounts for the Clean Coal Power Initiative Round III Funding Opportunity Announcement; $1.52 billion for a competitive solicitation for a range of industrial carbon capture and energy efficiency improvement projects, including a small allocation for innovative concepts for beneficial CO 2 reuse; $50.0 million for a competitive solicitation for site characterization activities in geologic formations; $20.0 million for geologic sequestration training and research grants; and $10.0 million for program direction. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act ( P.L. 94-163 ) in 1975, consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurring salt domes in Louisiana and Texas. Its current capacity is very nearly filled at 727 million barrels, and it is authorized at 1 billion barrels. The purpose of the SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oil that may be tapped in the event of a presidential finding that an interruption in oil supply, or an interruption threatening adverse economic effects, warrants a drawdown from the reserve. A Northeast Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR) was established during the Clinton Administration. The NHOR houses 2 million barrels of home heating oil in above-ground facilities in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Appropriations for the purchase of oil for the SPR ceased in the mid-1990s. Beginning in FY1999, fill of the SPR has been principally accomplished with deliveries of royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil to the SPR, in lieu of cash royalties on offshore production paid to the federal government. Loans of crude oil from the SPR to keep refineries supplied after recent hurricanes were returned with a greater volume of oil returned than was borrowed. On May 13, 2008, the House and Senate passed H.R. 6022 ( P.L. 110-232 ), suspending RIK fill unless the price of crude oil fell below a specified threshold. Fill was resumed with RIK oil during FY2009 after the precipitous drop in the price of oil. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) required expansion of the SPR to its authorized maximum of one billion barrels. Congress approved $205 million for the SPR program for FY2009, including $31.5 million to continue expansion activities at a site acquired during FY2008 in Richton, MS, that would eventually provide an additional 160 million barrels of capacity. The FY2010 budget request, at $229 million dollars, included $43.5 million for purchase of a cavern at Bayou Choctaw to replace a cavern posing environmental risks. The additional expense was to be offset by no new spending in FY2010 on expansion. The House approved the Administration request. The Senate Committee on Appropriations added $30 million to provide for engineering activities at the site chosen for expansion of the SPR in Richton, MS. The Committee expressed its position that it did not support any other activities at this time for expansion of the SPR. In conference, a Senate proposal was retained that would forbid the expenditure of funds appropriated for the SPR program to firms providing $1 million or more in refined products to Iran, or services, such as transportation, underwriting, and financing that facilitated exports of product to Iran, or expansion of Iranian refining capacity. The conference bill also includes $25 million to continue work at the site in Richton. The conference bill provides a total of $243.8 million. Congress approved $9.8 million in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, P.L. 111-8 , for the NHOR in FY2009, a reduction of $2.5 million from the FY2008 enactment, principally due to a reduction in the need for funds for repurchasing heating oil that was sold during FY2007 to finance new storage contracts. The FY2010 request for the NHOR is $11.3 million, an increase of $1.5 million to finance the purchase of nearly 16,000 barrels of heating oil sold during FY2007. The House approved the Administration request for the NHOR, as did the Senate and the conferees. The DOE Office of Science conducts basic research in six program areas: basic energy sciences, high-energy physics, biological and environmental research, nuclear physics, fusion energy sciences, and advanced scientific computing research. Through these programs, DOE is the third-largest federal funder of basic research and the largest federal funder of research in the physical sciences. The Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E), a new organization separate from the Office of Science, was authorized by the America COMPETES Act ( P.L. 110-69 ) to support transformational energy technology research projects. For FY2010, DOE has requested $4.942 billion for the Office of Science, an increase of 4% from the regular FY2009 appropriation of $4.758 billion, and $10 million for ARPA-E, a reduction of 33% from the regular FY2009 appropriation of $15 million. Both offices also received substantial FY2009 funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5 ): an additional $1.6 billion for the Office of Science and an additional $400 million for ARPA-E. The House provided $4.944 billion for the Office of Science in FY2010. The Senate provided $4.899 billion. The conference report provided $4.904 billion. The House and Senate bills and the conference report all provided no new funds for ARPA-E. The President's Plan for Science and Innovation would double the combined R&D funding of the Office of Science and two other agencies over the decade from FY2006 to FY2016. This continues a plan initiated by the Bush Administration in January 2006 as part of its American Competitiveness Initiative. The 4% increase requested for FY2010 is less than the annual rate required to achieve the doubling goal, but because some ARRA funds will be spent during FY2010, actual expenditures during FY2010 are likely to be greater than the amount appropriated. The requested funding for the largest Office of Science program, basic energy sciences, is $1.686 billion, up 7% from $1.572 billion in FY2009 (not including $555 million in the ARRA). Proposed increases include $34 million each for two innovation hubs, one focused on materials for energy storage and the other on direct production of fuels from solar energy. For the first time, funding for the development and operation of scientific user facilities is identified as a separate subprogram; a proposed increase of $20 million for this subprogram would support full use of the facilities. The House report accepted the proposal to establish scientific user facilities as a separate subprogram. The Senate rejected it. The conference report was silent. The House provided a total of $1.675 billion for basic energy sciences, including one hub (to be selected at the Secretary's discretion) and $23 million more than the request for scientific user facilities. The Senate provided $1.654 billion, including both the requested hubs. The conference report provided $1.636 billion, including neither hub. For high-energy physics, the request is $819 million, up 3% from $796 million in FY2009 (not including $232 million in the ARRA). Proposed increases include $31 million for construction of the NOνA detector at Fermilab and $12 million for U.S. activities in support of upgrades at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The House provided the requested amount. The Senate provided $813 million and questioned increased support for the LHC in light of the program's current technical difficulties. The conference report provided $810 million. The request for biological and environmental research is $604 million, up less than 1% from $602 million in FY2009 (not including $166 million in the ARRA). This program's two subprograms have been slightly renamed, and $100 million has been moved between them, but the changes are organizational, with little impact on program content. The House provided $597 million. The Senate bill and the conference report both provided the requested amount. For nuclear physics, the request is $552 million, up 8% from $512 million in FY2009 (not including $155 million in the ARRA). All four research subprograms would receive increases. Isotope development and production (transferred from the Office of Nuclear Energy in FY2009) would receive a reduction of $6 million. The conference report provided expressed concern about the state of U.S. isotope production but provided "not less than" the requested amount for the isotope development and production subprogram. The Senate report proposed funding nuclear medicine applications research in the nuclear physics program, but the conference report funded that activity in the biological and environmental research program as in previous years. The House provided a total of $536 million for nuclear physics. The Senate provided $540 million. The conference report provided $535 million. The request for fusion energy sciences is $421 million, up 5% from $403 million in FY2009 (not including $91 million in the ARRA). The request includes an $11 million increase for the U.S. share of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a fusion facility now under construction in France. The ITER partners are China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Under an agreement signed in 2006, the U.S. share of ITER's construction cost is 9.1%. According to estimates released in December 2007, that amount will be between $1.45 billion and $2.2 billion, with a completion date between FY2014 and FY2017. Press reports refer to "ballooning costs and growing delays" and the likelihood that "only a skeletal version" of ITER will be built, at least initially. A revised official estimate of ITER's cost and schedule is expected in late FY2010 or FY2011. The House provided $20 million more than the request, to be spent on laser fusion research at the Naval Research Laboratory. The Senate provided $416 million. The conference report provided $426 million, including "no explicit funding" for the Naval Research Laboratory. The request for the smallest Office of Science research program, advanced scientific computing research, is $409 million, up 11% from $369 million in FY2009 (not including $157 million in the ARRA). Proposed increases include $13 million for design of computer architectures for science and $12 million for the Leadership Computing Facility at Argonne National Laboratory. The House provided the requested amount. The Senate provided $399 million. The conference report provided $394 million. The request for Office of Science laboratory infrastructure is $134 million, down 8% from $145 million in FY2009 (not including $198 million in the ARRA). No new funds are requested for excess facilities disposition, which DOE expects to be fully funded under the ARRA. The House and Senate bills provided the requested amount. The conference report provided $128 million. The request for ARPA-E is $10 million, down 33% from $15 million in FY2009 (not including $400 million in the ARRA). This is a new program. DOE budget documents describe its mission as overcoming long-term, high-risk technological barriers to the development of energy technologies. The House provided no new funds for ARPA-E because of the ARRA funds that remain available. The House committee report stated that "the decision not to provide any additional funding ... does not in any way suggest a lack of commitment to this program by the Committee." The Senate and the conference report also provided no new funds for ARPA-E. DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is responsible for management and disposal of highly radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and defense facilities. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.), the only candidate site for permanent disposal of such waste is Yucca Mountain, Nevada. DOE filed a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in June 2008. The Obama Administration has decided to "terminate the Yucca Mountain program while developing nuclear waste disposal alternatives," according to the DOE FY2010 budget justification. Alternatives to Yucca Mountain are to be evaluated by a "blue ribbon" panel of experts convened by the Administration. At the same time, according to the justification, the NRC licensing process for the Yucca Mountain repository is to continue, "consistent with the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act." The FY2010 OCRWM budget request of $198.6 million sought only enough funding to continue the Yucca Mountain licensing process and to evaluate alternative policies, according to DOE. The request was about $90 million below the FY2009 funding level, which was nearly $100 million below the FY2008 level. More than 2,000 waste program contract employees were to be terminated during FY2009, according to the budget justification. Most of the program's remaining work is to be taken over by federal staff. All work related solely to preparing for construction and operation of the Yucca Mountain repository is being halted, according to the DOE budget justification. Such activities include development of repository infrastructure, waste transportation preparations, and system engineering and analysis. The House agreed with the Administration's plans to provide funding solely for Yucca Mountain licensing activities and for a blue-ribbon panel to review waste management options. The House approved the Administration budget request, including $5 million for the blue-ribbon review. However, the House-passed bill specified that the review must include Yucca Mountain as one of the alternatives, despite the Administration's contention that the site should no longer be considered. According to the House Appropriations Committee report, "It might well be the case that an alternative to Yucca Mountain better meets the requirements of the future strategy, but the review does not have scientific integrity without considering Yucca Mountain." The House panel also recommended that at least $70 million of the program's funding be devoted to maintaining expertise by the Yucca Mountain Project management contractor to support the licensing effort, rather than relying entirely on federal staff. The Senate also recommended approval of the Administration request, but without any restrictions on the blue-ribbon panel. Funding for the nuclear waste program is provided under two appropriations accounts. The Administration's FY2010 request is divided evenly between an appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which holds fees paid by nuclear utilities, and the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account, which pays for disposal of high-level waste from the nuclear weapons program. The Senate Appropriations Committee report called for the Secretary of Energy to suspend fee collections, "given the Administration's decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program while developing disposal alternatives." The conference agreement provides the reduced funding requested by the Administration and includes bill language that states, "$5,000,000 shall be provided to create a Blue Ribbon Commission to consider all alternatives for nuclear waste disposal." That is the same language that appeared in the House-passed bill, along with House Appropriations Committee instructions that the Blue Ribbon panel include Yucca Mountain as a disposal option. However, the Conference Committee Joint Explanatory Statement states that "all guidance provided by the House and Senate reports is superseded by the conference agreement." Additional funding from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the Yucca Mountain licensing process was included in the NRC budget request. The House provided the full $56 million requested, while the Senate voted to cut the request to $29 million. The conference agreement includes the Senate reduction. NWPA required DOE to begin taking waste from nuclear plant sites by January 31, 1998. Nuclear utilities, upset over DOE's failure to meet that deadline, have won two federal court decisions upholding the department's obligation to meet the deadline and to compensate utilities for any resulting damages. Utilities have also won several cases in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. DOE estimates that liability payments would eventually total $11 billion if DOE were to begin removing waste from reactor sites by 2020, the previous target for opening Yucca Mountain. (For more information, see CRS Report R40202, Nuclear Waste Disposal: Alternatives to Yucca Mountain , by [author name scrubbed], and CRS Report RL33461, Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal , by [author name scrubbed].) Congress established the DOE Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program with Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-58 ). The act authorized loan guarantees for energy projects using "new or significantly improved technologies" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The FY2009 omnibus funding measure ( P.L. 111-8 ) provided DOE with loan guarantee authority of $47 billion, to remain available indefinitely, in addition to previously approved authority of $4 billion. Of the $47 billion, $18.5 billion was for nuclear power, $18.5 was for energy efficiency and renewables, $6 billion was for coal, $2 billion was for carbon capture and sequestration, and $2 billion was for uranium enrichment. The FY2010 budget request proposed no changes in DOE's loan guarantee authority, but it requested an increase in administrative funding from $19.9 million in FY2009 to $43.0 million in FY2010, to be entirely offset by fees. The House and Senate approved the Administration request, as did the conference agreement. Additional loan guarantees of up to $60 billion for renewable energy and electric transmission projects were provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ( P.L. 111-5 ). Unlike the loan guarantee authority provided by the appropriations measures, project sponsors under P.L. 111-5 will not have to pay up-front fees to cover potential loan defaults; instead, $6 billion was appropriated to cover such potential costs. However, $2 billion of that funding has since been transferred to the "cash for clunkers" automobile trade-in program by P.L. 111-47 . A related DOE program, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, was established by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ( P.L. 110-140 ). The FY2009 Continuing Resolution appropriated $7.5 billion to allow DOE to issue up to $25 billion in direct loans. No additional appropriations for loans were sought for FY2010, but DOE requested $20 million in new funding for administrative expenses, which is included in the conference agreement. The program is to provide loans to eligible automobile manufacturers and parts suppliers for making investments in their plant capacity to produce vehicles with improved fuel economy. Congress established the Stockpile Stewardship Program in the FY1994 National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 103-160 ) "to ensure the preservation of the core intellectual and technical competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons." The program is operated by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semiautonomous agency within DOE that Congress established in the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 106-65 , Title XXXII). It seeks to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA's Weapons Activities account: three main programs—Directed Stockpile Work, Campaigns, and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities—and several smaller ones. All are described below. Table 10 presents their funding. NNSA manages two programs outside of Weapons Activities: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, discussed later in this report, and Naval Reactors. Most stewardship activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex, which consists of three laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, NM and CA); four production sites (Kansas City Plant, MO; Pantex Plant, TX; Savannah River Site, SC; and Y-12 Plant, TN); and the Nevada Test Site. NNSA manages and sets policy for the complex; contractors to NNSA operate the eight sites. The FY2010 request document includes data from NNSA's Future Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), which projects the budget and components through FY2014 (see Table 11 ). Although the nuclear weapons complex (the "Complex") currently consists of eight sites, it was much larger during the Cold War in terms of number of sites, budgets, and personnel. Despite the post-Cold War reduction, many in Congress have for years wanted the Complex to change further, in various ways: fewer personnel, lower cost, greater efficiency, smaller footprint at each site, increased security, and the like. (For congressional action on FY2005-FY2008 appropriations, see CRS Report RL34009, Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations , coordinated by [author name scrubbed].) In response, in January 2007 NNSA submitted a report to Congress on its plan for transforming the Complex, "Complex 2030." The House Appropriations Committee, in its FY2008 report, expressed displeasure with this plan and demanded "a comprehensive nuclear defense and nonproliferation strategy," a detailed description translating that strategy into a "specific nuclear stockpile," and "a comprehensive, long-term expenditure plan, from FY2008 through FY2030" before considering further funding for Complex 2030 and a nuclear weapon program, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW, discussed below). It stated that "NNSA continues to pursue a policy of rebuilding and modernizing the entire complex in situ without any thought given to a sensible strategy for long-term efficiency and consolidation." The Senate Appropriations Committee saw an inadequate linkage between warheads, the Complex, and strategy, and "rejects the Department's premature deployment of the NNSA Complex 2030 consolidation effort." The joint explanatory statement accompanying the consolidated appropriations bill said, "The Congress agrees to the direction contained in the House and Senate reports requiring the Administration ... to develop and submit to the Congress a comprehensive nuclear weapons strategy for the 21 st century." On December 18, 2007, NNSA announced its plan, Complex Transformation, a name change from Complex 2030. It would retain existing sites, reduce the weapons program footprint by as much as one-third, close or transfer from weapons activities about 600 structures, reduce the number of weapons workers by 20%-30%, dismantle weapons more rapidly, and build several major new facilities, such as a Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12 Plant, a Weapons Surveillance Facility at Pantex Plant, and a Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory. This plan is more fully described in the Final Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement released in October 2008, along with two Records of Decision of December 2008. The House Appropriations Committee reiterated its FY2008 views in its FY2009 report: Before the Committee will consider funding for most new programs, substantial changes to the existing nuclear weapons complex, or funding for the RRW [Reliable Replacement Warhead], the Committee insists that the following sequence be completed: (1) replacement of Cold War strategies with a 21 st Century nuclear deterrent strategy sharply focused on today's and tomorrow's threats, and capable of serving the national security needs of future Administrations and future Congresses without need for nuclear testing; (2) determination of the size and nature of the nuclear stockpile sufficient to serve that strategy; (3) determination of the size and nature of the nuclear weapons complex needed to support that future stockpile. In keeping with this approach, the committee recommended eliminating funds for RRW and for several programs described below. In its FY2009 report, the Senate Appropriations Committee also recommended eliminating funds for RRW and made various changes to individual programs. It did not provide general comments on Complex transformation. P.L. 111-8 provided no funds for RRW. Similarly, the FY2010 budget requests no funds for RRW. Another FY2010 budget document states, "The Administration proposes to cancel development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW)—a new design warhead intended to replace the current inventory of nuclear weapons—because it is not consistent with Presidential commitments to move towards a nuclear-free world." This program involves work directly on nuclear weapons in the stockpile, such as monitoring their condition; maintaining them through repairs, refurbishment, life extension, and modifications; R&D in support of specific warheads; and dismantlement. Specific items under DSW include the following: Life Extension Programs (LEPs). These programs aim to extend the life of existing warheads by 20 to 30 years through design, certification, manufacture, and replacement of components. An LEP for the B61 mods 7 and 11 bombs was completed in FY2009; no funds are requested for it for FY2010. An LEP for the W76 warhead for the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile is ongoing. P.L. 111-8 provided $202.9 million for that purpose; the FY2010 request is $209.2 million. Life-extended W76 warheads are designated W76-1; the first such warhead entered the stockpile in February 2009. The House bill would increase the request for the W76-1 to $233.2 million. It expressed its concern that NNSA's request for the W76-1 "does not reflect the needs of military clients" and "directs NNSA to explicitly highlight in its future budget requests any instance in which its budget request will not support the military requirements of its Air Force and Navy clients." The Senate bill would appropriate the amount requested. The conference bill includes $223.2 million. Stockpile Systems. This program involves routine maintenance, replacement of limited-life components, ongoing assessment, and the like for all weapon types in the stockpile. P.L. 111-8 provided $328.5 million; the FY2010 request is $390.3 million. Of the eight warhead types listed, the largest program under stockpile systems is for the B61 bomb, $59.5 million for B61 sustainment and $65.0 million to complete a B61 Phase 6.2/6.2A refurbishment study. The House bill would appropriate the sustainment funds as requested and no funds for the latter study. It "will not support a major warhead redesign in the absence of clearly defined nuclear weapons strategy, stockpile, and complex plans." The Senate bill also includes the amount requested. The conference bill includes $357.8 million, of which $92.0 million is included for B61 stockpile systems activities. The bill provides that "upon completion of the Nuclear Posture Review and confirmation of the requirement for the B61-12, the NNSA is authorized to reallocate an additional $15,000,000 within the Stockpile Systems activities to support the continuation of the B61-12 non-nuclear upgrade study … [and that] no funds may be obligated or expended for B61-12 nuclear components without prior approval by the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate." The conference agreement calls for two reports on the B61-12. Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition (WDD). The President and Congress have agreed on the desirability of reducing the stockpile to the lowest level consistent with national security, and numbers of warheads have fallen sharply since the end of the Cold War. According to NNSA, "Reducing the total number of U.S. nuclear weapons sends a clear message to the world that critical modernization programs do not signal a return to the arms race of the Cold War." WDD involves interim storage of warheads to be dismantled; dismantlement; and disposition (i.e., storing or eliminating warhead components and materials). P.L. 111-8 appropriated $190.2 million. The FY2010 request is $84.1 million; the House bill would appropriate $108.9 million and the Senate bill the amount requested. The conference bill includes $96.1 million. Within WDD, the major activity for FY2009 was the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF), which has been moved to the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities account for FY2010. The "pit" is the fissile component (usually plutonium) of a nuclear warhead that initiates a thermonuclear explosion. As warheads are dismantled, pits may be stored, but for permanent disposition PDCF would convert the plutonium in pits to plutonium oxide for use in a Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF), where it would become fuel for commercial light-water nuclear reactors. In FY2008, MFFF was transferred from NNSA to DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy. WDD includes a Waste Solidification Building (WSB) to convert liquid wastes from PDCF and MFFF into solids for disposal off-site. For FY2010, the WSB account has been moved to the Fissile Materials Disposition Program within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. Stockpile Services. This category includes Production Support; R&D Support; R&D Certification and Safety; Management, Technology, and Production; and pit work. P.L. 111-8 provided $866.4 million for Stockpile Services. The FY2010 request is $831.1 million; the House bill recommended $805.1 million. Pit work has undergone several changes. For FY2008, it was divided into Pit Manufacturing and Pit Manufacturing Capability. The explanatory statement for H.R. 1105 ( P.L. 111-8 ) stated that in the FY2009 request, "[t]hese two functions were not well defined or delineated." As a result, the bill provided a single appropriation of $155.3 million for Plutonium Capability, a reduction from $198.8 million for the two FY2008 pit accounts. For FY2010, NNSA changed the name of Plutonium Capability to Plutonium Sustainment, and requests $149.2 million. NNSA states that FY2010 Plutonium Sustainment "activities will be focused on sustaining the pit manufacturing infrastructure and manufacturing W88 pits to meet stockpile surveillance requirements." The W88 is a warhead for the Trident II (D-5) submarine-launched ballistic missile. The House bill recommended $123.2 million for Plutonium Infrastructure Sustainment, $26.0 million below the request, to produce W88 pits at a minimum rate to maintain plutonium capability. The Senate bill includes $844.1 million, including an increase of $30 million to support subcritical experiments at the Nevada Test Site, and no funds to implement a transfer of tritium responsibilities as included in NNSA's Complex Transformation plan. The conference bill includes $828.8 million. Reliable Replacement Warhead. This program sought to develop a warhead initially to replace W76 warheads. Congress eliminated FY2008 and FY2009 funds for developing this warhead. For FY2010, the Administration proposes to cancel the program and NNSA requests no funds for it. These are "multi-year, multi-functional efforts" that "provide specialized scientific knowledge and technical support to the directed stockpile work on the nuclear weapons stockpile." Many campaigns have significance for policy decisions. For example, the Science Campaign's goals include improving the ability to assess warhead performance without nuclear testing, improving readiness to conduct nuclear tests should the need arise, and maintaining the scientific infrastructure of the nuclear weapons laboratories. Campaigns also fund some large experimental facilities, such as the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The FY2010 request includes five campaigns: Science Campaign. According to NNSA, this campaign "develops improved scientific capabilities and experimental infrastructure to assess the safety, security, reliability, and performance of the nuclear explosives package (NEP) portion of weapons without reliance on further underground testing." P.L. 111-8 provided $316.7 million; the FY2010 request is also $316.7 million. The House bill has $296.4 million. Regarding campaigns generally, the Senate Appropriations Committee stated, "The Committee does not believe this [requested] level of funding is adequate to support modernization of the complex." The Senate bill includes $319.7 million for the Science Campaign, the conference bill includes $295.6 million. Engineering Campaign. This campaign seeks "to develop capabilities to assess and improve the safety, reliability, and performance of the non-nuclear and nuclear explosive package engineering components in nuclear weapons without further underground testing." P.L. 111-8 provided $150.0 million, and the FY2010 request is also $150.0 million. A component of this campaign is Enhanced Surety to develop improved means of safety, security, and use control for nuclear weapons. In the explanatory statement on H.R. 1105 , the House and Senate Appropriations Committees "strongly support improved surety," and P.L. 111-8 provided $46.1 million for Enhanced Surety, non-RRW. "Non-RRW" specifies that surety is not to be enhanced through RRW: a goal of RRW was to enhance surety, but Congress denied funding for that program. The House bill includes $174.1 million for FY2010, of which $66.1 million is only for Enhanced Surety, and "directs that priority for Enhanced Surety go to those weapon types at greatest long-term risk." The Senate and conference bills include the amount requested. Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign. This campaign is developing the tools to create extremely high temperatures and pressures in the laboratory—approaching those of a nuclear explosion—to support weapons-related research and to attract scientific talent to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. The centerpiece of this campaign is the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the world's largest laser. While NIF was controversial in Congress for many years and had significant cost growth and technical problems, controversy waned as the program progressed. The facility was dedicated in May 2009, with key experiments expected to begin in 2010. P.L. 111-8 provided $436.9 million for this campaign. The FY2010 request is also $436.9 million; the House bill would appropriate $461.9 million, the Senate bill, $453.4 million; and the conference bill, $457.9 million. Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign. This campaign develops computation-based models of nuclear weapons that integrate data from other campaigns, past test data, laboratory experiments, and elsewhere to create what NNSA calls "the computational surrogate for nuclear testing," thereby enabling "comprehensive understanding of the entire weapons lifecycle from design to safe processes for dismantlement." It includes funds for hardware and operations as well as for software. P.L. 111-8 provided $556.1 million; the FY2010 request is also $556.1 million. According to the explanatory statement on H.R. 1105 , "The budget submitted by NNSA has a striking lack of detail regarding he NNSA's computing strategy, acquisition plan … [raising] the concern that the acquisition strategy for new [computing] platforms will not fit within the available budget." The statement directed NNSA to report on several aspects of this campaign, with the report having independent review and a six-month deadline (September 11, 2009). For FY2010, the House bill would appropriate $561.1 million, an increase of $5.0 million. It specified that $5.0 million be used for "technology assessments of nuclear weapons that could be employed by sub-state actors or potentially hostile minor nuclear powers." The Senate Appropriations Committee stated that this campaign needs more resources in the future and the Senate bill would appropriate $566.1 million. The conference bill includes $567.6 million. Readiness Campaign. This campaign develops technologies and techniques to improve the safety and efficiency of manufacturing and reduce its costs. P.L. 111-8 provided $160.6 million. The FY2010 request is $100.0 million, and the House, Senate, and conference bills include that amount. NNSA explains that it made most of the reduction "to support higher priority work." This program funds infrastructure and operations at nuclear weapons complex sites. P.L. 111-8 provided $1,674.4 million. The FY2010 request is $1,736.3 million, and the House bill would appropriate $1,779.3 million, adding funds above the request for operations at Pantex Plant and Y-12 Plant. The Senate bill would appropriate $1,848.9 million "to fill significant gaps in infrastructure development at the NNSA facilities." The conference bill includes $1,842.9 million. RTBF has six subprograms. By far the largest is Operations of Facilities ( P.L. 111-8 , $1,163.3 million; FY2010 request, $1,342.3 million; conference bill, $1,348.3 million). Others include Program Readiness, which supports activities occurring at multiple sites or in multiple programs ( P.L. 111-8 , $71.6 million; FY2010 request, $73.0 million; conference bill, $73.0 million); Material Recycle and Recovery, which recovers plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium from weapons production and disassembly ( P.L. 111-8 , $70.3 million; FY2010 request, $69.5 million; conference bill, $69.5 million); and Construction ( P.L. 111-8 , $314.5 million; FY2010 request, $203.4 million; conference bill, $303.9 million). The most costly and controversial item in Construction is the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement (CMRR) Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory ( P.L. 111-8 , $97.2 million; FY2010 request, $55.0 million). CMRR would replace a building over 50 years old that, among other things, houses research into plutonium and supports pit production at Los Alamos. In considering the FY2008 budget, the House Appropriations Committee stated, "Proceeding with the CMRR project as currently designed will strongly prejudice any nuclear complex transformation plan. The CMRR facility has no coherent mission to justify it unless the decision is made to begin an aggressive new nuclear warhead design and pit production mission at Los Alamos National Laboratory." In contrast, the Senate Appropriations Committee stated, "The current authorization basis for the existing CMR [facility] lasts only through 2010, as it does not provide adequate worker safety or containment precautions. However, deep spending cuts ... will likely result in delays that will require the laboratory to continue operations in the existing CMR facility." In its FY2009 report, the House Appropriations Committee stated, regarding CMRR and the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility, "In the absence of critical decisions on the nature and size of the stockpile, which in turn generate requirements for the nature and capacity of the nuclear weapons complex, it is impossible to determine the capacity required of either of these facilities. It would be imprudent to design and construct on the basis of a guess at their required capacity." The committee recommended no funds for either project. It also recommended no funds for two other projects, stating, "Each is a new start in the absence of a strategy defining the requirements for the facility." The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $125.0 million, an increase of $24.8 million, for CMRR "to make up for [previous] funding shortfalls." For FY2010, the House bill includes $55.0 million for CMRR, and the Senate bill, $98.0 million. The conference bill provides $97.0 million. Another major proposed facility is the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) at Y-12 Plant. The House Appropriations Committee stated that the budget does not permit construction of UPF and CMRR at the same time, and that UPF would incorporate high security and would have nonproliferation benefits. Accordingly, the House bill would appropriate $101.5 million for UPF, $50.0 million above the request. The Senate bill would appropriate $94.0 million, and the conference bill includes that amount. Weapons Activities includes several smaller programs in addition to DSW, Campaigns, and RTBF. Among them: Secure Transportation Asset: provides for safe and secure transport of nuclear weapons, components, and materials. It includes special vehicles for this purpose, communications and other supporting infrastructure, and threat response. P.L. 111-8 provided $214.4 million. The FY2010 request is $234.9 million; the conference bill includes that amount. Nuclear Weapons Counterterrorism Response (House Appropriations Committee terminology) or Nuclear Weapons Incident Response (Senate Appropriations Committee terminology): "responds to and mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide and has a lead role in defending the Nation from the threat of nuclear terrorism." P.L. 111-8 provided $215.3 million. The FY2010 request is $221.9 million; the conference bill includes that amount. Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP): "continues its mission to restore, rebuild and revitalize the physical infrastructure of the nuclear security enterprise." It focuses on "elimination of legacy deferred maintenance." P.L. 111-8 provided $147.4 million. The FY2010 request is $154.9 million; the conference bill includes $93.9 million. Site Stewardship seeks to "ensure environmental compliance and energy and operational efficiency throughout the nuclear security enterprise." It is a new program, consolidating several earlier programs. Its FY2010 request is $90.4 million. The House Appropriations Committee said it supports the program but made a reduction due to "budget limitations." The House bill includes $62.4 million. The Senate bill includes $61.3 million and denies funding for the stewardship planning initiative because "the mission priorities are poorly defined." The conference bill provides $61.3 million. Safeguards and Security consists of two elements. (1) Defense Nuclear Security provides operations, maintenance, and construction funds for protective forces, physical security systems, personnel security, and the like. P.L. 111-8 provided $735.2 million. The FY2010 request is $749.0 million. The House bill has $789.0 million, adding funds for security upgrades and for improved training and equipment. The Senate bill includes the amount requested. The conference bill provides $769.0 million. (2) Cyber Security seeks to "ensure that sufficient information technology and information management security safeguards are implemented throughout the NNSA enterprise to adequately protect the NNSA information assets." P.L. 111-8 provided $121.3 million. The FY2010 request is $122.5 million, and the conference bill includes that amount. P.L. 111-8 provided $22.8 million for congressionally directed projects. For FY2010, the House bill includes $3.0 million for one such project and the Senate bill has no such projects. The conference bill provides $3.0 million. DOE's nonproliferation and national security programs provide technical capabilities to support U.S. efforts to prevent, detect, and counter the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide. These nonproliferation and national security programs are included in the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Funding for these programs in FY2009 was $1.482 billion. The Obama Administration requested $2.137 billion for FY2010 for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, but most of this increase results from returning two major construction projects, the Mixed-Oxide (MOX) plant and the Waste Solidification Building, to the Fissile Materials Disposition program from other parts of DOE. (See below.) The House bill, which does not include the transfer of the construction projects, would appropriate $1.4712 billion. The Senate bill, which includes the transfer, would appropriate $2.1367 billion. The conference bill appropriates $2.1367 billion, the same as the Senate bill. The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program was funded at $363.8 million for FY2009. The request for FY2010 was $297.3 million, and the House bill would appropriate the same amount. The Senate bill includes $337.3 million for this program. The conference amount is $317.3 million. Nonproliferation and International Security programs include international safeguards, export controls, and treaties and agreements. The FY2010 request for these programs was $207.0 million, compared with $150.0 million appropriated for FY2009. The House bill included $187.2 million, the Senate bill and the conference bill the same. International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A), which is concerned with reducing the threat posed by unsecured Russian weapons and weapons-usable material, was funded at $400.0 million in FY2009; the FY2010 request was $552.3 million. The House bill would provide $592.1 million, and the Senate bill would provide the requested $552.3 million. The conference bill appropriates $572.1 million. Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production is aimed at persuading Russia to shut down three nuclear reactors that produce weapons-grade plutonium and also supply power to several communities. Two of the three reactors were shut down in 2008 and their power replaced by a refurbished fossil-fueled facility. The third plutonium-producing reactor will be replaced by construction of another fossil-fueled facility. The program was funded at $141.3 million for FY2009; the request for FY2010 was $24.5 million. The House and Senate bills would appropriate that amount, and the conference bill does also. The goal of the Fissile Materials Disposition program is disposal of U.S. surplus weapons plutonium by converting it into fuel for commercial power reactors, including construction of a facility to convert the plutonium to "mixed-oxide" (MOX) reactor fuel at Savannah River, SC, and a similar program in Russia. However, funding for the U.S. side of the program has been controversial for several years, because of lack of progress on the program to dispose of Russian plutonium. For FY2008 the Administration requested $609.5 million for Fissile Materials Disposition, including $393.8 million for construction. The House Appropriations Committee, noting that Russia had decided in 2006 not to pursue plutonium disposition in light water MOX reactors but to build fast breeder reactors instead, declared the bilateral agreement a failure and asserted that the $1.7 billion previously appropriated for facilities to be used in the U.S. side of the plutonium disposal agreement was "without any nuclear nonproliferation benefit accrued to the U.S. taxpayer." The committee recommended transferring the MOX plant and another project, the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF), both at Savannah River, SC, to the nuclear energy program and NNSA's weapons program respectively. The FY2008 omnibus funding act adopted the House position, transferring the MOX plant and PDCF to other programs. The net appropriation for the NNSA's Fissile Materials Disposition program was reduced to $66.2 million. For FY2009, the Bush Administration requested $41.8 million, and that amount was appropriated. However, for FY2010 the Obama Administration proposed returning the MOX plant and the Waste Solidification Building to the Nonproliferation program, and requested a total of $701.9 million for Fissile Materials Disposition. The request justification notes that "DOE and its Russian counterpart agency, Rosatom, agreed on a financially and technically credible program to dispose of Russian surplus weapon-grade plutonium in November 2007." The program would rely on Russian fast reactors "operating under certain nonproliferation restrictions," according to the budget document. The House Appropriations Committee did not agree with this move, and the House bill would transfer the projects to Other Weapons Activities, reducing Fissile Materials Disposition to $36.4 million. The Senate bill agrees with the Administration's project transfer and would appropriate the requested $701.9 million, and the conference bill appropriates the Senate number. In 1989, DOE established what is now the Office of Environmental Management to consolidate the cleanup of former nuclear weapons sites. Cleanup includes disposal of large amounts of radioactive and other hazardous wastes, management and disposal of surplus nuclear materials, remediation of soil and groundwater contamination, and decontamination and decommissioning of excess buildings and facilities. Cleanup of sites where the federal government conducted civilian nuclear energy research is also carried out by the Office of Environmental Management. Over 100 federal facilities across the United States were involved in the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy research. The total land area of these facilities encompasses over 2 million acres. Although cleanup is complete at over 80 of these facilities, DOE expects cleanup to continue at some facilities for many years, even decades at the larger and more complex facilities where large volumes of wastes are stored and contamination is more severe. DOE estimates that total outstanding costs to complete cleanup at all of the remaining facilities could range between $205 billion and $260 billion. DOE expects that additional funds will be needed at many facilities to operate, maintain, and monitor cleanup remedies over the long term. At sites where the cleanup remedy involves the permanent containment of radioactive wastes, such long-term activities may need to be continued indefinitely because of the lengthy periods of time required for radioactivity to decay to acceptable levels. Some of the facilities historically administered under the Office of Environmental Management have been transferred to other offices within DOE and to the Army Corps of Engineers. In 1997, Congress directed the Office of Environmental Management to transfer responsibility for the cleanup of smaller, less contaminated facilities under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) to the Corps. (See Title I.) Once cleanup of a FUSRAP site is complete, the Corps is responsible for activities that may be needed only for the first two years after the initial cleanup work is completed. After that time, jurisdiction over the site is transferred to DOE's Office of Legacy Management. The Office of Legacy Management also administers any long-term activities that may be needed at facilities cleaned up under the Office of Environmental Management. Appropriations for both of these offices are discussed below. Three accounts fund the Office of Environmental Management: Defense Environmental Cleanup, Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, and the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) Fund. Defense Environmental Cleanup by far constitutes the largest portion of funding for the Office of Environmental Management. The conference report on H.R. 3183 would provide a total of $5.64 billion for Defense Environmental Cleanup in FY2010. Prior to conference, the House had proposed $5.38 billion, and the Senate had proposed $5.76 billion. The President had requested $5.50 billion. Congress appropriated $5.66 billion for Defense Environmental Cleanup in FY2009. The conference report would provide $244.7 million for Non-Defense Cleanup in FY2010. Prior to conference, the House had proposed $237.5 million, the same as the President requested. The Senate had proposed $259.8 million. Congress appropriated $281.8 million for FY2009. For the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund account, the conference report would provide $573.9 million in FY2010. Prior to conference, the House had proposed $559.4 million, the same as the President requested. The Senate had proposed $588.3 million. Congress appropriated $535.5 million to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund account in FY2009. The above comparisons to the FY2009 appropriations reflect the amounts provided in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act ( P.L. 111-8 ). In addition to these "regular" appropriations, the Office of Environmental Management received a total of $6.0 billion in supplemental appropriations for FY2009 in the ARRA ( P.L. 111-5 ). Per the law, DOE is to obligate the funds by the end of FY2010 (September 30, 2010). Of the $6 billion in supplemental appropriations, $5.13 billion was allocated to Defense Environmental Cleanup, $483 million to Non-Defense Cleanup, and $390 million to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund account. In its FY2010 budget justification, DOE stated that it was not going to use the FY2009 supplemental funding to accelerate the scheduled cleanup of larger sites. Instead, the funds would be directed to what the Office of Environmental Management calls "footprint reduction" and finishing up projects that are nearing completion. DOE asserts that such activity has the potential to reduce maintenance costs and yield significant cleanup progress. DOE also stated that its approach in allocating the funding "will allow thousands of blue-collar workers to be hired with limited training required," thus addressing the economic stimulus goals of the ARRA. In its report on H.R. 3183 , the House Appropriations Committee directed DOE to update certain elements of the Department's most recent report on its cleanup progress to reflect the impacts of the additional resources provided in the ARRA and appropriations anticipated for FY2010. DOE released its last report in January 2009, presenting funds spent on cleanup through FY2007, estimating the remaining costs from FY2008 through the completion of cleanup, and identifying cleanup "milestones." These milestones are binding deadlines for the completion of cleanup actions to which DOE has agreed with federal and state regulators in formalized agreements at each site. In recent years, the adequacy of funding for DOE to achieve these milestones has been an issue. The committee drew attention to the significant increase in funding for FY2009 provided in the ARRA, and indicated its expectation that these additional resources should allow scheduled milestones to be met in FY2009. The committee directed DOE to update its cleanup progress report by April 1, 2010. The pace of cleanup has been of particular concern at the largest sites that present the greatest environmental risks, including Hanford in the State of Washington, the Savannah River site in South Carolina, and the Idaho National Laboratory. These sites present some of the most complex cleanup challenges resulting from decades of nuclear weapons production, and therefore receive the greatest portions of funding for the Office of Environmental Management. For Hanford, the conference report would provide $2.09 billion in FY2010. The House has proposed $1.95 billion, and the Senate had proposed $2.12 billion. The President had requested $2.00 billion. The conference report would provide $1.21 billion in FY2010 for the Savannah River site, the same as the President requested. The House had proposed $1.19 billion, and the Senate had proposed $1.24 billion. For the Idaho National Laboratory, the conference report would provide $464.2 million in FY2010. The House had proposed $475.0 million, and the Senate had proposed $470.2 million. The President had requested $406.2 million. Funding needs at these sites are expected to continue for decades. DOE estimates that cleanup may not be complete at Hanford until as late as 2062, at the Savannah River site until 2040, and at the Idaho National Laboratory until 2037. These lengthy horizons in part are due to the time that will be needed to treat and dispose of substantial volumes of high-level radioactive wastes stored at each of these sites. According to DOE's most recent estimate, there are a total of 54 million gallons of high-level wastes stored in 177 tanks at Hanford, 33 million gallons in 49 tanks at Savannah River, and nearly 1 million gallons in 4 tanks at the Idaho National Laboratory. These high-level wastes are intended to be permanently disposed of in a geologic repository, but the removal and treatment of the wastes to prepare them for disposal presents many technical difficulties. The lack of availability of a geologic repository presents other challenges. Delays in the construction of facilities needed to treat the wastes have raised concern about environmental risks from the potential release of untreated wastes still stored in the tanks. Some of the tanks at Hanford are known or suspected to have leaked wastes into groundwater that discharges into the Columbia River. DOE routinely monitors water quality in the Columbia River to determine whether contaminant levels are within federal and state standards. There has been similar concern about the possible contamination of the Snake River from the tank wastes at the Idaho National Laboratory, and the Savannah River itself from the tank wastes at DOE's Savannah River site. There also has been rising interest in the source of funding for the cleanup of three uranium enrichment facilities administered by the Office of Environmental Management. These facilities are located at Paducah, KY; Portsmouth, OH; and Oak Ridge, TN. Title XI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 ( P.L. 102-486 ) established the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund to pay for the cleanup of these facilities. To support this fund, P.L. 102-486 authorized the collection of assessments from nuclear utilities, and payments by the federal government from appropriations out of the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury, as both nuclear utilities and the United States benefitted from the production of enriched uranium. The authority to collect the utility assessments, and the authorization of appropriations for the federal payment, expired on October 24, 2007. Congress has continued federal payments to the fund through the annual appropriations process without enacting reauthorizing legislation. Whether to reauthorize the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund has been an issue, as its remaining balance does not appear sufficient to pay the estimated costs to complete the cleanup of the federal enrichment facilities. As of the end of FY2008, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reported that $4.5 billion remained available in the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund for appropriation by Congress, far less than DOE's estimated range of $15 billion to $29 billion that may be needed to meet all outstanding cleanup needs over the long-term. If the fund is insufficient to pay for the cleanup, P.L. 102-486 states that DOE is responsible for the costs, subject to appropriations by Congress. To help offset the federal payment and to increase overall resources to meet projected long-term funding needs, the President proposed to reinstate the utility assessments, and included $200 million in estimated collections in his FY2010 budget request. Neither the conference report on H.R. 3183 , nor the original House and Senate bills, included the $200 million in offsetting collections in FY2010. Reauthorizing legislation first must be enacted before the assessments could be collected and made available for appropriation. So far in the 111 th Congress, at least two bills have been introduced to reauthorize the utility assessments, H.R. 2471 and S. 1061 . Although the utility assessments have not been reauthorized to date, the conference report on H.R. 3183 did include $463 million within the Defense Environmental Cleanup account to continue the federal payment to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund in FY2010, the same as the House and Senate had proposed, and the President had requested. On another matter related to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund account, the conferees on H.R. 3183 highlighted DOE's recent plan to expand cleanup work at the Portsmouth uranium enrichment plant. The conferees observed that the President had not included any funding in his budget request to finance this more recently planned work. The conferees noted the Department's intent to finance this work instead with an "off-budget barter strategy for federal uranium assets." The conferees raised questions about the financial viability of this strategy, and directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate DOE's management of federal uranium assets and the Department's "success or failure" in meeting federal budgetary objectives through the sale of these materials. Table 13 presents funding levels proposed for FY2010 for the accounts that fund DOE's Office of Environmental Management, compared to appropriations enacted for FY2009. A breakout is provided for sites and activities in which there has been broad interest within Congress. Once a facility is cleaned up under DOE's Office of Environmental Management or the FUSRAP program of the Corps, responsibility for any necessary long-term operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities is transferred to DOE's Office of Legacy Management. This Office also manages the payment of pensions and post-retirement benefits of former contractor personnel who worked at these sites. The conference report on H.R. 3183 would provide $189.8 million in FY2010 for the Office of Legacy Management, the same as the House and Senate had proposed prior to conference, and the same as the President had requested. Congress appropriated $186.0 million for the Office of Legacy Management in FY2009. It also should be noted that Congress began to fund all facilities administered under the Office of Legacy Management entirely within the "Other Defense Activities" account of DOE in FY2009. The majority of these facilities were involved in the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Prior to FY2009, Congress had appropriated funding in a separate account for the relatively small number of non-defense facilities administered under the Office of Legacy Management. As in FY2009, the conference report on H.R. 3183 would provide this Office's funding in FY2010 entirely within the Other Defense Activities account of DOE. DOE's four Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs)—Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)—were established to sell the power generated by the dams operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers. In many cases, conservation and management of water resources—including irrigation, flood control, recreation or other objectives—were the primary purpose of federal projects. (For more information, see CRS Report RS22564, Power Marketing Administrations: Background and Current Issues , by [author name scrubbed].) Priority for PMA power is extended to "preference customers," which include municipal utilities, cooperatives, and other "public" bodies. The PMAs sell power to these entities "at the lowest possible rates" consistent with what they describe as "sound business practice." The PMAs are responsible for covering their expenses and for repaying debt and the federal investment in the generating facilities. The Obama Administration's FY2010 request for the PMAs was $288.9 million. This is an overall increase of $8.3 million (23.1%) compared with the FY2009 request. The individual requests for each PMA are: SEPA, $7.6 million; SWPA, $44.9 million; and WAPA, $256.7 million. In addition, $2.6 million was requested for Falcon and Amistad operations and maintenance. The House and Senate bills includes spending at the levels requested by the Administration. The FY2010 budget also proposes the permanent reclassification of receipts from mandatory to discretionary to offset the annual expenses of the Western, Southwestern, and Southeastern Power Marketing Administrations to allow for better operations and maintenance planning and execution, leading to a more reliable power system. Reclassification of these receipts would be achieved through legislation with a 2010 impact for all of the PMAs of $189.384 million. ARRA provided $10 million in non-reimbursable appropriations to WAPA to support implementation of activities authorized in section 402 of the act. ARRA also provided WAPA borrowing authority for the purpose of planning, financing or building new or upgraded electric power transmission lines to facilitate the delivery of renewable energy resources constructed by or expected to be constructed after the date of enactment. This authority to borrow from the United States Treasury is available to WAPA on a permanent, indefinite basis, with the amount of borrowing outstanding not to exceed $3.25 billion. WAPA has established a new Transmission Infrastructure Program for this purpose. In approving the Administration's budget request, the SCA directs WAPA to work with its firm power customers in developing annual work plans. BPA is a self-funded agency under authority granted by P.L. 93-454 (16 U.S.C. §838), the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974, and receives no appropriations. However, it funds some of its activities from permanent borrowing authority, which was increased in FY2003 from $3.75 billion to $4.45 billion (a $700 million increase). ARRA increased the amount of borrowing that BPA conducts under the Transmission System Act by $3.25 billion to the current authority for $7.7 billion in bonds outstanding to the Treasury. This FY2010 budget proposes Bonneville accrue expenditures of $3.029 billion for operating expenses, $105 million for Projects Funded in Advance, $846 million for capital investments, and $420 million for capital transfers in FY2010. The budget has been prepared on the basis of Bonneville's major areas of activity, power and transmission. BPA published in the Federal Register its initial proposal for power and transmission rates for the FY2010 and FY2011 rate period in February 2009 and expects to complete the rate case by August 2009. Independent agencies that receive funding from the Energy and Water Development bill include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and the Denali Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested $1.071 billion for FY2010 (including $10.1 million for the inspector general's office), an increase of $25.6 million from the FY2009 funding level. The House endorsed the full NRC request, including funding for licensing the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The Senate provided the full request for NRC, plus a slight increase for the inspector general, and included a higher revenue offset that resulted in a net appropriation level that was $24.3 million below the total request. The conference agreement provides $1.067 billion, including $10.9 million for the inspector general. Major activities conducted by NRC include safety regulation and licensing of commercial nuclear reactors and oversight of nuclear materials users. The NRC budget request included $248.3 million for new reactor activities, largely to handle new nuclear power plant license applications. Until recently, no new commercial reactor construction applications had been submitted to NRC since the 1970s. However, volatile fossil fuel prices, the possibility of controls on carbon emissions, and incentives provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 prompted electric utilities to apply for licenses for 26 reactors since September 2007, with several more expected through 2010. NRC's proposed FY2010 budget also included $56.0 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund for licensing DOE's proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, for which the license application was submitted June 3, 2008. NRC's FY2009 appropriation for Yucca Mountain licensing was $49.0 million, but NRC noted that previously appropriated funding raised the total FY2009 spending level to $59.0 million. The House provided the full NRC request for Yucca Mountain licensing, but the Senate cut the amount to $29.0 million. The conference agreement included the lower Senate level. The Obama Administration has pledged to halt the Yucca Mountain repository and find alternative strategies for handling nuclear waste, but it has allowed the Yucca Mountain licensing process to continue. However, Senator Reid, a long-time opponent of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, announced on July 29, 2009, that the Administration had agreed to terminate the Yucca Mountain licensing effort in the FY2011 budget request. For reactor oversight and incident response, NRC's FY2010 budget request included $263.2 million, about $2 million above the FY2009 level. Those activities include reactor safety inspections, collection and analysis of reactor performance data, and oversight of security exercises. (For more information on protecting licensed nuclear facilities, see CRS Report RL34331, Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].) The Energy Policy Act of 2005 permanently extended a requirement that 90% of NRC's budget be offset by fees on licensees. Not subject to the offset are expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for waste repository licensing, spending on general homeland security, and DOE defense waste oversight. The offsets in the FY2010 request would have resulted in a net appropriation of $183.9 million, an increase of $9 million from FY2009. The House approved the requested FY2010 net appropriation, while the Senate-passed net appropriation was $159.7 million. The net appropriation in the conference agreement, including the inspector general, is $154.7 million. | The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies. Key budgetary issues for FY2010 involving these programs may include: the distribution of Corps appropriations across the agency's authorized planning, construction, and maintenance activities (Title I); support of major ecosystem restoration initiatives, such as Florida Everglades (Title I) and California "Bay-Delta" (CALFED) and San Joaquin River (Title II); funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal); several new initiatives proposed for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs (Title III); and funding decisions in DOE's Office of Environmental Management. Energy and Water Development funding for FY2009 was included in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8). In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, the "Stimulus" Act, P.L. 111-5) included funding for numerous programs in the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy, to be expended in FY2009 and FY2010. Funding for FY2010 Energy and Water Development programs is contained in H.R. 3183, which the House passed July 17, 2009. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 3183 July 29. The Conference Committee issued its report (H.Rept. 111-278) September 30, and the House passed the conference bill October 1, and the Senate October 15. The President signed the bill October 28 (P.L. 111-85). |
Medicare and Medicaid have consistently been targets for fraudulent conduct because of their size and complexity. Private health care insurance carriers are also vulnerable to fraud due to the immense volume of claims they receive and process. Those who commit fraud against public health insurers are also likely to engage in similar conduct against private insurers. The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud estimates that in 1997 fraud in the health care industry totaled about $54 billion nationwide, with $20 billion attributable to private insurers and $34 billion to Medicare and Medicaid. In addition to losses due to fraud, the Department of Health and Human Services’ OIG has reported that billing errors, or mistakes, made by health care providers were significant contributors to improperly paid health care insurance claims. The OIG defined billing errors as (1) providing insufficient or no documentation, (2) reporting incorrect codes for medical services and procedures performed, and (3) billing for services that are not medically necessary or that are not covered. For fiscal year 2000, the OIG reported that an estimated $11.9 billion in improper payments were made for Medicare claims. In a March 1997 letter to health care providers, the Department of Health and Human Services’ IG suggested that providers work cooperatively with the OIG to show that compliance can become a part of the provider culture. The letter emphasized that such cooperation would ensure the success of initiatives to identify and penalize dishonest providers. One cooperative effort between the IG and health care groups resulted in the publication of model compliance programs for health care providers. The OIG encourages providers to adopt compliance principles in their practice and has published specific guidance for individual and small group physician practices as well as other types of providers to help them design voluntary compliance programs. A voluntary compliance program can help providers recognize when their practice has submitted erroneous claims and ensure that the claims they submit are true and accurate. In addition, the OIG has incorporated its voluntary self-disclosure protocolinto the compliance program, under which sanctions may be mitigated if provider-detected violations are reported voluntarily. Evaluation and management services refer to work that does not involve a medical procedure—the thinking part of medicine. The key elements involved in evaluation and management services are (1) obtaining the patient’s medical history, (2) performing a physical examination, and (3) making medical decisions. Medical decisions include determining which diagnostic tests are needed, interpreting the results of the diagnostic tests, making the diagnosis, and choosing a course of treatment after discussing the risks and benefits of various treatment options with the patient. These decisions might involve work of low, medium, or high complexity. Each of the key elements of evaluation and management services contains components that indicate the amount of work done. For example, a comprehensive medical history would involve (1) determining a patient’s chief complaint, (2) tracing the complete history of the patient’s present illness, (3) questioning other observable characteristics of the patient’s present condition and overall state of health (review of systems), (4) obtaining a complete medical history for the patient, (5) developing complete information on the patient’s social history, and (6) recording a complete family history. A more focused medical history would involve obtaining only specific information relating directly to the patient’s symptoms at the time of the visit. Providers and their staffs use identifying codes defined in an American Medical Association publication, titled Current Procedural Terminology (CPT), to bill for outpatient evaluation and management services performed during office visits. The CPT is a list of descriptive terms and identifying codes for reporting all standard medical services and procedures performed by physicians. Updated annually, it is the most widely accepted nomenclature for reporting physician procedures and services under both government and private health insurance programs. The CPT codes reported to insurers are used in claims processing, and they form the basis for compensating providers commensurate with the level of work involved in treating a patient. Accordingly, the higher codes, which correspond to higher payments, are used when a patient’s problems are numerous or complex or pose greater risk to the patient, or when there are more diagnostic decisions to be made or more treatment options to be evaluated. The CPT has two series of evaluation and management codes for outpatient office visits, one series for new patient visits and another for established patient visits. Each series of CPT codes has five levels that correspond to the difficulty and complexity of the work required to address a patient’s needs. The code selected by the provider to describe the services performed in turn determines the amount the provider will be paid for the visit. For example, under the current Medicare fee schedule for the District of Columbia and surrounding suburbs, a provider would be paid $39.30 for a new patient who is determined to have received services commensurate with a level 1 visit and $182.52 for a level 5 visit. Similarly, payments for level 1 and level 5 visits by an established patient are $22.34 and $128.03, respectively. The two workshops we attended provided certain advice that is inconsistent with the OIG guidance and that, if followed, could result in violations of criminal and civil statutes. Specifically, at one workshop the consultant suggested that when providers identify an overpayment from an insurance carrier, they should not report or refund the overpayment. Furthermore, consultants at both workshops suggested that providers attempt to receive a higher-than-earned level of compensation by making it appear, through documentation, that a patient presented more complex problems than he or she actually did. Additionally, one consultant suggested that providers limit the services offered to patients with low- paying insurance plans, such as Medicaid, and that they discourage such patients from using the provider’s services by offering appointments to them only in time slots that are inconvenient to other patients. One workshop focused on the merits of implementing voluntary compliance programs. The consultant who presented this particular discussion explained that a baseline self-audit to determine the level of compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations is a required step in creating a voluntary compliance program. Focusing on “how to audit- proof your practice” and avoid sending out “red flags,” the consultant advised providers not to report or refund overpayments they identify as a result of the self-audit. The consultant claimed that reporting or refunding the overpayment would raise a red flag that could result in an audit or investigation. When asked the proper course of action to take when an overpayment is identified, the consultant responded that providers are required to report and refund overpayments. He said, however, that instead of refunding overpayments, physician practices generally fix problems in their billing systems that cause overpayments while “keeping their mouths shut” and “getting on with life.” Such conduct, however, could result in violations of criminal statutes. According to the most recent OIG Medicare audit report, the practice of billing for services that are not medically necessary or that lack sufficient diagnostic justification is a serious problem in the health insurance system. The OIG estimated that during fiscal year 2000, $5.1 billion was billed to insurance plans for unnecessary services. Intentionally billing for services that are not medically necessary may result in violations of law. Moreover, based on advice given at workshops that we attended during this investigation, we are concerned that insurers may be paying for tests and procedures that are not medically necessary because physicians may be intentionally using such services to justify billing for evaluation and management services at higher code levels than actual circumstances warrant. Specifically, two consultants advised that documentation of evaluation and management services performed can be used to create, for purposes of an audit, the appearance that medical issues confronted at the time of a patient’s office visit were of a higher level of difficulty than they actually were. For example, a consultant at one workshop urged practitioners to enhance revenues by finding creative ways to justify bills for patient evaluation and management services at high code levels. He advised that one means of justifying bills at high code levels is to have nonphysician health professionals perform numerous procedures and tests. To illustrate his point, the consultant discussed the hypothetical case of a cardiologist who examines a patient in an emergency room where tests are performed and the patient is discharged after the cardiologist determines that the patient has a minor problem or no problem at all. To generate additional revenue, the consultant suggested that the cardiologist tell the patient to come to his office for a complete work-up, even when the cardiologist knows that the patient does not have a problem. He advised that the work-up be performed during two separate office visits and that the cardiologist not be involved in the first visit. Instead, a nurse is to perform tests, draw blood, and take a medical history. During the second visit, the cardiologist is to consult with the patient to discuss the results of the tests and issues such as life style. The consultant indicated that the cardiologist could bill for a level 4 visit, indicating that a relatively complex medical problem was encountered at the time of the visit. The consultant made clear that the cardiologist did not actually confront a complex problem during the visit because the cardiologist already knew, based on the emergency room tests and examination, that the patient did not have such a problem. Another consultant focused on how to develop the highest code level for health care services and create documentation to avoid having an insurer change the code to a lower one. The consultant engaged in “exercises” with participants designed to suggest that coding results are “arbitrary” determinations. His emphasis was not that the code selection be correct or even that the services be performed, but rather that it is important to create a documentary basis for the codes billed in the event of an audit. He explained that in the event of an audit, the documentation created is the support for billing for services at higher code levels than warranted. During the exercises, program participants—all were physicians except for our criminal investigator—were provided a case study of an encounter with a generally healthy 14-year-old patient with a sore throat. Participants were asked to develop the evaluation and management service code for the visit that diagnosed and treated the patient’s laryngitis. The consultant suggested billing the visit as a level 4 encounter, supporting the code selection by documenting every aspect of the medical history and physical examination, and mechanically counting up the work documented to make the services performed appear more complicated than they actually were. All of the participants indicated that they would have coded the visit at a lower level than that suggested by the consultant, who stated that “documentation has its rewards.” The consultant explained that in the event of an audit, the documentation created would be the basis for making it appear that a bill at a high code level was appropriate. One workshop consultant encouraged practices to differentiate between patients based on the level of benefits paid by their insurance plans. He identified the Medicaid program in particular as being the lowest and slowest payer, and urged the audience to stop accepting new Medicaid patients altogether. The consultant also suggested that the audience members limit the services they provide to established Medicaid patients and offer appointments to them only in hard-to-fill time slots. Workshop participants were advised to offer better-insured patients follow-up services that are intended to affiliate a patient permanently with the practice. However, the consultant suggested that physicians may decide not to offer such services to Medicaid patients. He sent a clear message to his audience that a patient’s level of care should be commensurate with the level of insurance benefits available to the patient. This advice raises two questions: First, are medically necessary services not being made available to Medicaid patients? Second, are better-paying insurance plans being billed for services that are not medically necessary but performed for the purpose of affiliating patients from such plans to a medical practice? Program participants were further urged to see at least one new patient with a better-paying insurance plan each day. The consultant pointed out that, by seeing one new patient per day, a provider can increase revenue by $6,000 per year because the fee for a new patient visit is about $30 more than the fee for an established patient visit. He said that over time such measures would result in reducing the percentage of Medicaid patients seen regularly in the practice and increase the number of established patients with better-paying insurance. The consultant also recommended that providers limit the number of scheduled appointment slots available to Medicaid patients on any given day and that Medicaid patients be offered appointments only in hard-to-fill time slots rather than in the “best,” or convenient, time slots. He suggested that insurance information and new patient status be used to allocate the best time slots to the best payers. He identified this approach as “rationing,” which he described as “not real discrimination,” but “somewhat discrimination.” While neither the Social Security Act nor Medicaid regulations require physicians to accept Medicaid patients, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, or national origin in programs that receive federal financial assistance. The Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs, takes the position that the nondiscrimination requirement of title VI applies to doctors in private offices who treat and bill for Medicaid patients. While the conduct promoted by the consultant is not overt discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, under certain circumstances, such conduct might disproportionately harm members of protected groups and raise questions about title VI compliance. Moreover, even if the conduct promoted is not unlawful, it raises serious concerns about whether it would result in depriving Medicaid patients of medically necessary services, and whether better-paying insurance plans are billed for services that are not medically necessary but performed for the purpose of affiliating patients to a particular medical practice. Advice offered to providers at workshops and seminars has the potential for easing program integrity problems in the Medicare and Medicaid programs by providing guidance on billing codes for evaluation and management services. However, if followed, the advice provided at two workshops we attended would exacerbate integrity problems and result in unlawful conduct. Moreover, the advice raises concerns that some payments classified by the OIG as improperly paid health care insurance claims may stem from conscious decisions to submit inflated claims in an attempt to increase revenue. We have discussed with the Department of Health and Human Services’ OIG the need to monitor workshops and seminars similar to the ones we attended. As arranged with your office, unless you 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 make copies of the report available to interested congressional committees and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. This report will also be available at www.gao.gov. If you have any questions about this investigation, please call me at (202) 512-7455 or Assistant Director William Hamel at (202) 512-6722. Senior Analyst Shelia James, Assistant General Counsel Robert Cramer, and Senior Attorney Margaret Armen made key contributions to this report. | This report investigates health care consultants who conduct seminars or workshops that offer advice to health care providers on ways to enhance revenue and avoid audits or investigations. GAO attended several seminars and workshops offered by these consultants. GAO sought to determine whether the consultants were providing advice that could result in improper or excessive claims to Medicare, Medicaid, other federally funded health plans, and private health insurance carriers. GAO found that some advice was inconsistent with guidance provided by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (OIG). Such advice could result in violations of both civil and criminal statutes. |
NEW YORK (AP) — Serena Williams is showing off her pregnancy with a nude photo on the cover of the August issue of Vanity Fair.
The tennis superstar is seen in profile with her right arm covering her breasts and her pregnant stomach prominently on display. The magazine unveiled the cover Tuesday.
Serena announced her pregnancy with Reddit co-founder Alexis Olhanian in April. The magazine reports the couple will be married in the fall after the baby is born. Williams tells the magazine she "did a double take" and her heart "dropped" when she saw a positive test because it came just before the Australian Open, which she ended up winning.
Also Tuesday, former tennis star John McEnroe refused to apologize for his remarks in which he said Williams wouldn't rank among the top 700 players if she were on the men's tour. ||||| Last January, on the eve of the Australian Open, Serena Williams handed her fiancé, Alexis Ohanian, a paper bag containing six positive pregnancy tests. It was just the latest surprise in an unlikely pairing: the world’s greatest tennis player and the geek co-founder of Reddit. From their first date—a magical six hours in Paris—to their plans for the baby’s arrival, this is the full love story.
Last January, on the eve of the Australian Open, Serena Williams handed her fiancé, Alexis Ohanian, a paper bag containing six positive pregnancy tests. It was just the latest surprise in an unlikely pairing: the world’s greatest tennis player and the geek co-founder of Reddit. From their first date—a magical six hours in Paris—to their plans for the baby’s arrival, this is the full love story.
Last January, on the eve of the Australian Open, Serena Williams handed her fiancé, Alexis Ohanian, a paper bag containing six positive pregnancy tests. It was just the latest surprise in an unlikely pairing: the world’s greatest tennis player and the geek co-founder of Reddit. From their first date—a magical six hours in Paris—to their plans for the baby’s arrival, this is the full love story.
This is a love story. It wasn’t seamless, starry eyes at first light. There was a discovery, unexpected and shocking. There were moments of really getting pissed and the standard irritation that comes when one half of the whole kept leaving the suitcase in the hallway. But there were also moments of unplanned intimacy that is the only true kind of intimacy in a love story, soft touches and laughter and absurdity, because you need absurdity in a love story, since love is slightly absurd anyway, a feeling that, like eternity, is indefinable. Which leads us, on the surface at least, to the seemingly mismatched pairing of 35-year-old Serena Williams and her fiancé, 34-year-old Alexis Ohanian. She is the beyond remarkable tennis player, although all superlatives are pointless. He is in the high cotton of high tech as the co-founder of the Web site Reddit, which has 234 million unique monthly users. They became engaged last December, after first meeting roughly a year and a half earlier, then found out in January that Serena was pregnant. They will be married in the fall after the birth of the baby. Photograph by Annie Leibovitz. With 23 grand-slam wins on the women’s pro tennis tour spanning nearly three decades—from her first, at 17 years old, in September of 1999, to her latest, at 35, in January of 2017, and the most in the open era—Serena is in the heart of every conversation concerning the best athlete of her time. “If I were a man, then it wouldn’t be any sort of question,” she told me. She may well be right, a society still conditioned to believe that men are better than women in everything except the superfluous. Alexis, on the other hand, had never seen a tennis match until he met Serena, in May of 2015 in Rome. He knew so little about the game that the photo he excitedly posted on Instagram of her playing her first match in the Italian Open showed her foot faulting. Serena plays a sport that requires the mental focus of instantaneously letting go of losing points and moving on because there are a lot of excruciating ones no matter how great you are, continual regrouping and re-inventing: dwell on them, you lose confidence; lose confidence and you lose. She is also superbly conditioned, given that a female tennis player may run about three miles in a match without the luxury of coming out of the game because you feel winded or lost too much money gambling with teammates the night before on the charter and would rather mope on the bench. Alexis’s athletic history amounted to the level of a very gangly defensive tackle for Howard High School in Ellicott City, Maryland, far more interested in science fairs and programming and building Web sites. His skill at tennis is not one of potential; when Serena offered to give him a lesson, he turned it down so he could tell his friends that he once turned down a lesson with Serena Williams. Serena has been romantically linked in the past to such rappers as Drake and Common. Once, when she and Alexis went to a movie in San Francisco, he got up from his seat to get popcorn, earning the admiration of the kid at the counter. Reddit, Rome, and rats? Watch the video below for a primer on the unlikely beginning of Serena Williams’s and Alexis Ohanian’s romance. “Yo, dude, that wasn’t Serena Williams, was it?” “Come on. Me? Really?” “You’re right.”
Before we get to how Serena and Alexis actually met, or a better sense of who he really is, or her reaction to the pregnancy and how she told him, it’s probably wise to spend a little time with Serena Williams to give our love story some context. Let’s just get this out of the way right now: Serena Williams is the best tennis player in history, with an aggregate winning percentage of 85.76 percent and 72 tournaments won on the Women’s Tennis Association tour (including the 23 grand-slam victories in 29 singles finals, not to mention 14 doubles finals with sister Venus). She has earned $84,463,131 in career prize money and nearly twice that in endorsements and appearance fees. Thirty is the point of no return for most female tennis players, but Serena has only gotten better since, with 10 grand-slam wins and almost running the four-tournament table—the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open—in 2015. She has been ranked No. 1 in the world longer than anyone other than Steffi Graf and Martina Navratilova, and is the obvious favorite to win any tournament she chooses to play in. But then an unforeseen discovery left both Serena and Alexis in shock. Which is perfect for our love story, since a love story without drama is just another story. January 2017
It began to unfold roughly a week before the beginning of the Australian Open, in Melbourne, last January, not that anyone would have known. After playing poorly in her first match of the year, in which she felt she had missed too many backhands, she went to the practice court and for two and a half to three hours hit 2,500 of them, by her estimation. If she missed one, she started over. She did roughly the same the next practice day. But she felt a little different physically. She had unexpectedly thrown up at one point and her breasts had enlarged. She thought it might be hormonal. But her friend Jessica Steindorff immediately suspected something else and suggested a pregnancy test. Serena thought it was ludicrous. Jessica worked on her for two days until Serena relented, and so Jessica went to a pharmacy and bought a pregnancy kit. “I’ll take it just because (a) to prove you wrong and (b) because it’s fun, whatever. It’s like a joke. Why not?” Photograph by Annie Leibovitz. That Friday, as Serena was doing her hair and makeup for an event sponsored by the lingerie company Berlei, where she is a spokesperson for its line of sports bras, she took the test in the bathroom. “I put it down. I went back to finishing hair and makeup, was laughing, talking. I was getting the styling done. An hour and a half later, I went back to the bathroom and I totally forgot about it because it was impossible for me. . . . So I went back to get dressed and I went back in the bathroom and I was like, ‘Oh yeah, that test.’ ” Jessica shrieked in delight at the results. Serena, as she put it, “did a double take and my heart dropped. Like literally it dropped. “Oh my God, this can’t be—I’ve got to play a tournament,” said Serena. “How am I going to play the Australian Open? I had planned on winning Wimbledon this year.” But never underestimate the Serena Stubbornness, as legendary in certain circles as her first serve. Beleaguered Jessica went back to the hotel pharmacy and bought five more test kits to further convince her. Test No. 2: Positive. Test No. 3: Positive. Test No. 4: Positive. Test No. 5: Positive. Test No. 6: Positive. Which is an opportune time in our love story to bring in the father and rewind to the moment Serena met Alexis and Alexis met Serena. May 2015
Although in his early 30s, there is something still gushingly boyish about Alexis, six feet five inches and lean, with the moppish hairstyle that college tour guides favor as they extol all the wonders of the campus, including the mail room and the six-shooter cereal dispenser. In his case the corporate offices of Reddit, in the Union Square area of San Francisco, which look oddly unfinished—as if to say, Why be bothered with such trivialities in the hip high-tech culture?—twentysomething savants engrossed by their computer screen with heads slightly hunched, the way people used to look when they were engrossed by books, searching for the next Pied Piperian breakthrough and likely finding it before lunch is served on the second floor from a line of stainless-steel buffet trays winking and nodding with nutritious options. Alexis was born in Brooklyn and raised in the nationally known planned community of Columbia, Maryland. Reddit’s origins go back to 2004 during his junior year at the University of Virginia, when he took an L.S.A.T. prep exam for law school, got about midway through the first section, and went to the Waffle House on Route 29 in Charlottesville to have waffles. He realized he did not want to be a lawyer, just as he had also realized that his real love was programming and building Web sites. He teamed with Steve Huffman, an engineering major, whom he had met the first day of freshman year. Photograph by Annie Leibovitz. They came up with the concept for Reddit, a Web site self-described as “the front page of the Internet,” in which users interact and respond to a myriad of topics that interest them. The number of users went up rapidly, and, in 2006, 16 months after launching it, he and Huffman, still in their early 20s, sold the company to Condé Nast (which also publishes this magazine) for a reported $10 to $15 million. The price was a fraction of what Reddit has been estimated to be worth today: $4 billion. Alexis sheepishly admitted that they may have sold the company a little early. He left Reddit and went to Armenia, where his father’s family is originally from, to do volunteer work. He wrote a book called Without Their Permission: How the 21st Century Will Be Made, Not Managed, and traveled the United States for five months to promote it on a bus that went to 80 universities because he wanted to be on a bus that traveled around the country. He became a leading voice in stopping government intervention in the Internet. He helped invent the travel Web site Hipmunk. Several years ago, he and Huffman returned to Reddit as executive chairman and chief executive officer, respectively, the company once again independent.
Alexis and Serena met the way two people do in the best love stories: by chance. Actually, it runs a little deeper than that because, let’s face it, Alexis was initially considered by Serena and the others she was with to be an irritant they were hoping would just get the hint and go away. The location was the Cavalieri hotel, in Rome, on May 12, 2015. That night Serena was about to play her first match in the Italian Open. She is not a morning person and usually doesn’t eat breakfast, but the buffet offering at the Cavalieri was beyond extravagant and Jessica was champing at the bit, so they went to try it along with longtime agent Jill Smoller, of William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, and Zane Haupt, who handles some business-development opportunities for Serena. The buffet had closed down five minutes before the group got there, so their only recourse was to go to the pool area and sit at a table for four and order breakfast. Other people on Serena’s team were expected at an adjoining table. The night before, Alexis had stayed up until one or two in the morning drinking at a café with Kristen Wiig and friends—Wiig was in Rome shooting Zoolander 2, and he knew her cousin, so he introduced himself. He passed out when he got back to the hotel, where he was staying for the Festival of Media Global conference, and was slightly hungover when he came down to breakfast. He too headed out to the pool area. Which is when he decided without thinking about it to sit at the table next to Serena, his only interest to get coffee and food and put on his headphones and work on his laptop. Which struck Serena and the others as a pain in the neck, since Alexis had a choice of other empty tables. “I knew it was coming,” she says of the proposal. “I was like, ‘Serena, you’re ready. This is what you want.’ ” “This big guy comes and he just plops down at the table next to us, and I’m like, ‘Huh! All these tables and he’s sitting here?,’ ” Serena remembered. Alexis recalled that the pool area was “not quite so empty.” Then came the quintessential Australian accent of Zane Haupt. “Aye, mate! There’s a rat. There’s a rat by your table. You don’t want to sit there.” Serena started laughing. “We were trying to get him to move and get out of there,” said Serena. “He kind of refuses and he looks at us. And he’s like, ‘Is there really a rat here?’ ” At which point Serena remembers the first words she ever said to him. “No, we just don’t want you sitting there. We’re going to use that table.” “I’m from Brooklyn. I see rats all the time.” “Oh, you’re not afraid of rats?” “No.” Which is when Serena suggested a compromise and invited Alexis to join them. Which is when Alexis became “98 percent sure” that the person asking about his rat tolerance was Serena Williams. He knew generally about her accomplishments on the court. But Alexis, an avid pro-football-and-basketball fan, had “never watched a match on television or in real life. It was literally the sport—even if ESPN was announcing tennis updates, I would just zone out. . . . I really had no respect for tennis.” He did keep this to himself. Serena asked about the tech conference and whom Alexis had come to hear speak. He later described the question as a “softball lobbed over the plate” that even he could hit out of the park. “Actually, I’m here to speak.” Alexis told her about Reddit. Serena knew nothing about it but acted as if she did, and said she had been on it earlier in the morning. To which Alexis asked, “Oh, were you? What do you like about it?” To which Serena gave a very long “Wellllll . . . ” and was saved by Jessica and Jill chiming in. Serena Williams has long been queen of the tennis court, but her success also extends to business, fashion, and philanthropy. Watch the video below to see some of her biggest career achievements. Serena started asking him about her Web site and if she should have an app. Alexis thought, “This is an interesting, charming, beautiful woman.” But he had just come out of a five-year relationship and was still slightly hungover and “I was not thinking beyond ‘Yeah sure, I can give you some feedback on your Web site.’ ” Serena thought he was interested in Jessica. But she did give him her number—she later said it was only because she might have more tech-related questions. He was eminently likable, and Jill, after finding out he was a client of WME for his speaking gigs, invited him to the match that night. Serena had an injury and did not play well but still won. Afterward she and her team got on a van to head back to the hotel. Alexis was on board as well and Serena freaked out a little bit. “I see this super-tall guy get in our [van], and I was like, ‘Oh my God, Jill. Tell me what’s wrong. Do I have another stalker? Why is Rome sending personal security with me. . . . And she’s like, ‘No, that’s Alexis.’ I remembered his name because it was a unique name. I was like, ‘Oh, I remember.’ ” After recognizing him, she invited Alexis to join her team for dinner that night. It didn’t work out. But something was in the air, and as our love story continues, there’s only one place to find out just what.
After Serena won the Australian Open, the next big tournament was the second leg of the grand-slam circuit, the French Open, at Roland-Garros, later that month. She texted Alexis that she was bummed that he had not seen her play well in Rome and proposed that maybe he should come to Paris. To Alexis, it was one of those classically inverse L.A.-style invites that are extended because you are sure it will never happen. But Alexis did come to Paris for the weekend. Not that he had any particular expectations. “Even if she blows me off and we don’t even hang out, I’m still going to have an amazing time in Paris, and I’ll have an even better story for all my childhood friends when I was like, ‘Yeah, I went to Paris for a weekend. I was supposed to meet up with Serena Williams, she blew me off, but I’ve got other friends there, and we had a great time.’ ” The tournament, which Serena would ultimately win, had not started yet. So Alexis and Serena got into an Uber near Serena’s apartment and drove toward the Eiffel Tower. They stopped at a zoo Serena knew about called La Ménagerie in the Jardin des Plantes, then at a stall selling candies. Serena became excited, like a small child, and Alexis bought her some. They just walked and roamed, Serena placing her faith in Alexis because he was a tried-and-true traveler, where all you needed was a backpack and the only rules were none. Alexis also sensed that this was not something Serena ever got to do as a worldwide celebrity, so much of her life being about regimen and glamorous scenes where acolytes circled like fireflies. For six hours they walked all over, the magic of the day multiplied by the city’s heartbreak of beauty, which only made it more beautiful. April 2016
The day of his birthday, April 24, Alexis went to the Carousel Restaurant in Little Armenia in Los Angeles with his grandparents. Serena and he FaceTimed. She was calling to say happy birthday, which might not sound like a big deal but was because she is a Jehovah’s Witness and part of the religion is not to celebrate birthdays. She was doing something she normally would not do, reaching beyond, telling him on the phone how wonderful their lives together had been. Alexis knew then he wanted to marry her, not simply out of happiness or compatibility. She was helping him become the best version of himself because of her own work ethic and focus, with millions watching and the expectation of the public that she should win every time, what Serena herself described as carrying “three pyramids” on her shoulder. He thought he worked hard—it is part of the romance of high tech that everyone works 18 hours a day and then curls up under the desk for a few hours’ sleep with their laptop as teddy bear and pacifier—but he realized it was nothing compared with Serena. “I felt like a door had been opened to a person who made me want to be my best self. . . . I find myself just wanting to be better by simply being around her because of the standard she holds.” December 2016
Alexis decided he would surprise Serena by proposing to her on December 10 in virtually the same spot he had first met her: the Cavalieri. It was an intricate and tactical plan, several months in the making. Serena was scheduled to play in an exhibition in India, so Jill Smoller talked her into making a stopover on the way back and spending the night at the Cavalieri. Then the exhibition was canceled. There was no reason for Serena to go to Italy. Plus, she was beginning training for the Australian Open, and when Serena gets close to a grand-slam event, practice becomes a personal Hacksaw Ridge—fury, broken rackets, sometimes tears. Now going to Rome? Alexis scrambled to enlist the help of others. Serena’s executive assistant, Dakota Baynham, secretly packed her bags. Tommy Hilfiger did a major solid by scheduling a meeting at her house in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, to discuss some fashion-related items so she would be there to get picked up for the airport. Jill came to the house and told her that she had to go to Italy because Alexis wanted her there under the guise of a spontaneous trip, much like the one they had taken to Disney World a few weeks earlier. Photograph by Annie Leibovitz. Serena wasn’t happy. Actually, she was livid. But after she got on the plane, she realized that he was flying her out for only one reason. “I knew it was coming. I was like, ‘Serena, you’re 35, you’re ready. This is what you
want.’ ” Alexis picked the same room they had shared a year earlier, the hotel at his instruction filling it with flowers. He took her downstairs to the same table by the pool area where they had first met. No one else was there, since the hotel, also at his instruction, had cleared everyone else out. He retold the story of how he had met her for the first time at this exact spot two years earlier. On the table was a little plastic rat. Alexis got on one knee and proposed. January 2017
Once Serena knew she was pregnant, she called Alexis and told him he needed to come to Melbourne earlier than planned. She did not give him the reason, but Alexis thought it was likely health-related and immediately got a United flight out of San Francisco. When she saw him, not a word was said. She handed him a paper bag with the six positive pregnancy tests. He was as shocked as Serena. But there wasn’t time to dwell. The Australian Open was about to begin, and an immediate medical determination had to be made on what risk there might be in playing. The doctor who examined her thought she was about three or four weeks pregnant—it was almost impossibly hard to tell because the fetus was so small—and said there was no risk whatsoever. When Serena returned to the States and had a subsequent exam, it was discovered that she had actually been more advanced, about seven to eight weeks, but she said she still would have played. There were only five people who knew during the tournament: Alexis, Jessica, Jill, Venus, and the doctor. Not even Serena’s coach knew. Nor did tournament officials. In her earlier years Serena was all about sheer aggressiveness, playing to the strength of opponents and still beating them. She has gotten more strategic, but her game still pivots on power, a first serve that often clocks in at somewhere around 120 miles an hour and is one of the best ever in tennis. The speed is lethal, but it is complemented by a perfect technique in which she tosses the ball in the air with the same trajectory every serve so her opponent has no idea where she is aiming. Assuming her opponent can even get to the first serve, it often makes for a weak return that enables Serena to finish off a point with short, three- or four-stroke rallies that conserve strength. This obviously helps her endurance and allows her, a great three-set player, to win a match. The Australian Open presented a new challenge that Serena had never faced before in her career. Because of the pregnancy she did not have the same endurance. She could uncharacteristically feel herself getting tired between points, particularly long ones. If a match went to three sets she knew she would lose, so she was determined to make every match two sets. She also had to deal with the Melbourne heat, which can be vicious on the court in the late afternoon: despite hating playing in the morning, Serena, because she had the option of choosing the match time in the early rounds, played as many as possible at 11 A.M. You had to win seven matches to win the tournament. Serena won them all in straight sets. May 2017
It is a typical day in Palm Beach Gardens, the temperature in the mid-80s and enough humidity to get your attention. Serena is on the back patio, curled up on a white outdoor couch trimmed with wicker. There is none of the pouty celebrity I-would-rather-be-doing-anything-other-than-this monosyllabic slouch, nor is every answer punctuated with Sorry-I-have-to-take-this-call. There are a few moments when she pauses and talks to Chip, her beloved teacup Yorkie, who is slightly bigger than her hand, and whom she calls “her son” and clearly means it. She is now a little more than six months pregnant and showing, which is helping her face the reality that she is having a baby, because “it just doesn’t seem real. I don’t know why. Am I having a baby? “If you would have told me last year in October or November that I would have a baby, not be pregnant but have a baby, I would have thought you were the biggest liar in the world. This is kind of how I am right now. This is happening sooner than later, and it’s going by so fast.” If there is no giddiness, there is no panic. Says her friend Diondria Thornton, Serena “loves being pregnant.” But it’s not that simple. “I can also see competition creeping in on her. Is this over yet? I think she’s getting this itch . . . to see her intensity and her workout—‘I have to stay fit. I have to get back on the court.’ Very determined to get back on the court.” Serena says she will return to the tennis circuit as soon as January because “I don’t think my story is over yet.” She is slowly converting one of the guest rooms of her house into the baby’s room but as of May hadn’t made any further preparations. “I don’t know what to do with a baby. I have nothing. . . . I’ve done absolutely nothing for the baby room.” She is more than busy: the working out, about to launch her own online fashion site, recently named to the board of SurveyMonkey, an online survey platform. She won’t get to the bulk of baby paraphernalia until later in the summer, when moving around will be much harder and she will be, as she puts it, “bored to tears.” Alexis, of course, is earnestly preparing and already has a tip jar he puts money into whenever he uses profanity so he won’t utter it around the baby. He also wants to make sure that Chip, his future stepson, is psychologically cool with a baby in the house. | Serena Williams is showing off her pregnancy with a nude photo on the cover of the August issue of Vanity Fair, the AP reports. The tennis superstar is seen in profile with her right arm covering her breasts and her pregnant stomach prominently on display. The magazine unveiled the cover Tuesday. Williams announced her pregnancy with Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian in April. The magazine reports the couple will be married in the fall after the baby is born. Williams tells the magazine she "did a double take" and her heart "dropped" when she saw a positive test because it came just before the Australian Open, which she ended up winning. Click to read the Vanity Fair piece, which the magazine says is the "full love story" between Williams and Ohanian. |
Story highlights U.S. commander wants an investigation complete before Christmas
Pakistan denies firing first at a NATO aircraft that killed two dozen Pakistanis
The Pakistani Taliban say Pakistan must respond in kind to the attack
A top Afghan official warns of possible conflict with Pakistan
Tensions among Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States jumped a notch Monday, with Pakistan's prime minister warning there would be "no more business as usual" with Washington after NATO aircraft killed two dozen Pakistan troops.
Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told CNN in an exclusive interview that Pakistan is re-evaluating its relationship with the United States in light of the airstrike, which NATO called a "tragic unintended" event. He said the South Asian nation wants to maintain its relationship with the United States so long as there is mutual respect and respect for Pakistani sovereignty.
Asked directly if Pakistan is getting that respect, Gilani said: "At the moment not."
JUST WATCHED Anger in Islamabad Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Anger in Islamabad 03:14
JUST WATCHED NATO admits fault in Pakistan attack Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH NATO admits fault in Pakistan attack 02:23
"If I can't protect the sovereignty of my country, how can we say that this is mutual respect and mutual interest?" he asked.
The Pakistani Taliban urged Pakistan to respond in kind to the airstrike, while a top adviser to Afghan President Hamid Karzai warned that Afghanistan and Pakistan could be on a path to conflict.
In his CNN interview, Gilani highlighted incidents such as the killing of the Pakistani troops and a U.S. raid into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden as violations of his country's sovereignty.
"You cannot win any war without the support of the masses ... and such sort of incidents makes people move away from this situation," he said.
Pakistan is a vital land supply route into Afghanistan for the United States and its allies, and a key partner in the battle against al Qaeda and its aligned jihadist movements. But Pakistani authorities turned back 300 trucks carrying NATO supplies and fuel into Afghanistan on Monday, and the prime minister said his government had not yet decided whether to boycott an upcoming Bonn conference on the future of Afghanistan.
Details of Saturday's deadly raid remained unclear Monday, and the chief of U.S. forces in the region named an Air Force general from the military's Special Operations Command to lead an investigation. Gen. James Mattis ordered the investigating officer, Brig. Gen. Stephen Clark, to report back to him by December 23.
According to two senior U.S. officials with direct knowledge of initial reporting on the incident, the probe is focusing on what coordination failures occurred before the airstrike.
One of the officials said initial reports indicate U.S. and Afghan forces said shots were fired across the border from Pakistan, noting that it is a known tactic of insurgents to fire into Afghanistan from very close to Pakistan border checkpoints because they believe it will give them sanctuary. The United States believes the Pakistanis "were called" before NATO opened fire, the official said, but he added that "at this point, we just don't know exactly what coordination was done."
A NATO official said Afghan troops were working with elements of U.S. Special Operations forces in a combined mission on the Afghan side of the border.
Pakistani military spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas denied the reports that Pakistani troops had prompted the attack Saturday by firing on the NATO helicopters. Speaking by phone to Pakistan's Geo TV News, Abbas said NATO helicopters fired first on the Pakistani military checkpoints.
Abbas said the soldiers notified Pakistani military headquarters, which informed NATO authorities immediately. The spokesman said Pakistani soldiers fired at the NATO aircraft in retaliation.
Speaking in London, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, acknowledged that the U.S.-Pakistani relationship was "troubled." But he suggested it would survive once the two nations work through the "real tragedy" of the Pakistani deaths.
"We've had other moments before," Dempsey said. "I'm hopeful that with the relationships we've built leader-to-leader and worked at over the past years, that we can find our way forward. But I understand the anger. I understand the concern."
The White House offered its condolences to Pakistan, while State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Washington was concerned about the impact the incident could have on relations with Pakistan.
"The relationship is vitally important to both countries. We both face a shared threat from extremists. ... We're taking this very seriously," he said.
A U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity told CNN that Pakistan remains a "critical" partner in counterterrorism, "and we do not anticipate significant changes in that relationship."
The Pakistani Taliban appeared to try to widen the rift Monday. A spokesman for the fundamentalist Islamic movement, Ihsanullah Ihsan, said in a phone call to CNN that the U.S. will infringe on Pakistan's sovereignty and continue operations on Pakistani soil in the coming days.
Ihsan said Pakistan must respond in kind to the NATO attacks, and he warned that the Pakistani Taliban will continue jihad as long as Pakistan remains an ally of the United States.
In Kabul, meanwhile, a senior adviser to President Karzai said Afghanistan and Pakistan may be on a course toward military conflict.
Ashraf Ghani said the link between Pakistan and the assassination of a former Afghan president had united his country "against interference."
Ghani accused Pakistan of harboring and assisting the insurgency in Afghanistan, and said his country's neighbor probably helped the suicide bomber who killed former Afghan President Burhanudin Rabbani in September.
"The assassination of President Rabbani has gelled the nation together against interference. And one or two more actions could put us in an irreversible course (toward) conflict. And we've shown through our history that we are a match for any invader," he said.
The two nations have been trading accusations in the border regions in the past few months, with Pakistan accusing the Afghans of harboring militants and Afghanistan claiming Pakistani shells have hit Afghan territory.
But on Sunday, a spokesman for Karzai urged Pakistan to come to the Bonn conference, which is being billed as a chance to start a reconciliation process in Afghanistan.
"We want Pakistan to participate in that. We want Pakistan to be part of the solution in Afghanistan," Aimal Faizi said. ||||| Supporters Pakistani religious party Jamatud Dawa burn representation of the U. S. flag and posters of US President Obama and NATO's general during a protest rally to condemn NATO strikes on Pakistani... (Associated Press)
The NATO airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers lasted almost two hours and continued even after commanders at the bases pleaded with coalition forces to stop, Pakistan's military claimed Monday, charges that could further inflame anger in Pakistan.
NATO has described the incident as "tragic and unintended" and has promised a full investigation.
Unnamed Afghan officials have said that Afghan commandos and U.S. special forces were conducting a mission on the Afghan side of the border and took incoming fire from the direction of the Pakistani posts. They responded with airstrikes.
Ties between Pakistan and the United States were already deteriorating before the deadly attack and have sunk to new lows since, delivering a major setback to American hopes of enlisting Islamabad's help in negotiating an end to the 10-year-old Afghan war.
Army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said the Pakistani troops at two border posts were the victims of unprovoked aggression. He said the attack lasted almost two hours and that commanders had contacted NATO counterparts while it was going on, asking that "they get this fire to cease, but somehow it continued."
The Pakistan army has previously said its soldiers retaliated "with all weapons available" to the attack.
The poorly defined, mountainous border has been a constant source of tension between Pakistan and the United States. NATO officials have complained that insurgents fire from across the frontier, often from positions close to Pakistani soldiers who have been accused of tolerating or supporting the militants. NATO and Afghan forces are not allowed to cross over into Pakistan in pursuit of militants.
Saturday's strikes added to popular anger in Pakistan against the U.S.-led coalition presence in Afghanistan. Many in the army, parliament, general population and media already believed that the U.S. and NATO are hostile to Pakistan and that the Afghan Taliban are not the enemy.
"Whoever is a friend of America is a traitor to the land," around 400 members of Jamaat-e-Dawa, an alleged front group for the militant Lashkar-e-Taiba organization, chanted in a demonstration in Karachi, the country's biggest city.
While the United States is widely disliked in Pakistan, the army has accepted billions in American aid over the last 10 years in return for its cooperation in fighting al-Qaida. It has been accused of fomenting anti-American sentiment in the country to extract better terms in what is essentially a transactional and deeply troubled relationship with Washington.
Saturday's deadly incident also serves to shift attention away from the dominant perception of the Pakistani army in the West over the last five years _ that of an unreliable ally that supports militancy. That image was cemented after al-Qaida's chief Osama bin Laden was found to have been hiding in an army town close to the Pakistani capital when he was killed.
For Pakistan's weak and much criticized elected government, Saturday's airstrikes provide a rare opportunity to unite the country and a momentary relief from attack by rivals eyeing elections in 2013 or sooner.
By contrast, deaths of soldiers and civilians in attacks by militants, some with alleged links to the country's spy agencies, are often greeted with official silence.
Abbas dismissed Afghanistan's claims that the joint Afghan-NATO troops were fired upon first.
"At this point, NATO and Afghanistan are trying to wriggle out of the situation by offering excuses," he said. "Where are their casualties?"
Abbas said the two military posts, named "Volcano" and "Golden," were situated on a ridge in Mohmand region around 300 yards (meters) from the border with Afghanistan. He said their exact location had been provided to NATO and that the area had recently been cleared of militants.
Hours after the attack on Saturday, Pakistan closed its western border to trucks delivering supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan, demanded that the U.S. abandon an air base inside Pakistan used to operate drone strikes, and said it will review its cooperation with the U.S. and NATO.
However, a complete breakdown in the relationship between the United States and Pakistan is considered unlikely. Pakistan relies on billions of dollars in American aid, and the U.S. needs Pakistan to push Afghan insurgents to participate in peace talks.
After the bin Laden raid, ties almost collapsed but slowly resumed, albeit at a lower level and with lower expectations on the American side.
Despite high-tech targeting systems, accidents in the "fog of war" happen often.
NATO has hit friendly forces, civilians and even a diplomatic mission in conflicts in Afghanistan, Libya and Serbia.
During the 1999 bombing of Serbia, NATO jets struck the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade by mistake, killing three Chinese reporters. Canadian and British troops were killed in "friendly fire" incidents involving NATO airpower in Afghanistan. In Libya, NATO reportedly bombed opposition fighters at least twice during the seven-month campaign.
______
Associated Press writers Deb Reichmann in Kabul, Afghanistan, and Slobodan Lekic in Brussels contributed to this report. ||||| The U.S. military began a high-level investigation to help salvage relations with Pakistan after an air strike by the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan killed 24 Pakistani troops at the border.
The U.S. military’s highest commander for the region, Marine General James Mattis, yesterday named Air Force Special Operations Command Brigadier General Stephen Clark to lead the investigation. Marine General John Allen, the top U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization commander in Afghanistan, had requested that Central Command take charge of the review, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said yesterday.
“You can expect the investigation to look at the full range of factors that contributed to this tragedy,” Little told reporters at the Pentagon. “It will be broad, expansive and thorough.”
The investigation and repeated U.S. condolences were aimed at avoiding a prolonged rift in a relationship that was already in a rebuilding stage after a tumultuous year. Ties had been strained by the killing of two Pakistanis by a Central Intelligence Agency contractor, the raid near Islamabad that killed Osama bin Laden, and U.S. accusations that Pakistan’s army aids groups attacking Americans in Afghanistan.
President Barack Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, said the U.S. takes the latest border incident “very seriously,” and will work to maintain cooperation with Pakistan. The two countries have “shared goals” when it comes to combating terrorism, he said.
Expressing Outrage
Pakistani authorities responded to the Nov. 25 air strike with expressions of outrage and by closing border crossings into Afghanistan that the coalition relies on to ferry supplies from a port to the land-locked war zone. Supply trucks for American- led forces in Afghanistan backed up on Pakistani roads near the border after the closure, leaving drivers and their cargo vulnerable to attack by Islamic guerrillas.
U.S. military officials have said their forces can sustain operations in Afghanistan for weeks in case of such a shutdown.
“There are other supply routes,” Little said. “The war effort continues.”
U.S. General William Fraser told Congress in July the Pakistan route was carrying 35 percent of “non-lethal” supplies for American-led forces in Afghanistan. The military has worked to shift to a northern route through Russia and Central Asia, Fraser said.
Drone Base Expulsion
Pakistan also ordered U.S. officials to leave an airbase in the southwest that has served as a launching point for Predator unmanned aircraft used against the Taliban and its allied guerrillas on both sides of the border.
Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a weekend phone call that the Nov. 25 attack by helicopter gunships triggered a “deep sense of rage” in the nuclear-armed nation, according to a foreign ministry statement.
Mattis’s instructions to Clark for the investigation said he should include representatives of NATO, the broader coalition fighting in Afghanistan, Afghan forces and the Pakistani government.
“Ensure openness and candor with them, respond to their questions they need to be addressed in the investigation and coordinate through them to receive evidence they offer,” Mattis told Clark in the letter. “Their participation will facilitate the investigative process to determine what happened and how we preclude it from happening again.”
Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, predicted “this crisis will get papered over” and “the U.S. will face even less prospect that Pakistan will really crackdown on insurgent groups in the border area.”
Joint Investigation
The U.S. and Pakistan conducted a joint investigation last year after a similar border incident involving several Pakistani deaths. In that case, the resolution prompted a NATO apology and opened border crossings that had been shut in the aftermath of the incident.
The Pakistan-Afghanistan border passes through rugged mountains and desert terrain and is unmarked over most of its more than 2,600-kilometer (1,600-mile) length. The two countries dispute the border’s location in many areas.
U.S. military and intelligence officials have cited a pattern of similar incidents at and around Pakistani frontier outposts.
In June 2008, U.S. aircraft bombed a remote Pakistani Frontier Corps border checkpoint and killed at least 11 soldiers.
At the time, U.S. officials said the bombing occurred after Taliban fighters “ambushed” American troops 1,000 yards inside Afghanistan, then fled into Pakistan through the border crossing. Pakistani officials called the bombing “completely unprovoked and cowardly.”
Murky Case
While the facts of the current case remain murky, “We have patterns of behavior that suggest that these bases sometimes provide cover for militants, or that militants use them as cover,” said Dr. Tim Hoyt, a professor at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, who has studied Pakistan for 25 years.
The Pakistani military’s ties to some Afghan militant groups date back to their fight, alongside the U.S., against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
“There is also a pattern of the Pakistanis supporting militant groups against their neighbors,” Hoyt said in a telephone interview.
Expressing Condolences
Arizona Senator John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, referred to Pakistani support for the militant Haqqani network and other Afghan insurgents in expressing condolences yesterday for the latest incident.
“I fully support NATO’s commitment to investigate this tragedy thoroughly and immediately,” McCain said in a statement. “It is important to note that certain facts in Pakistan continue to complicate significantly the ability of coalition and Afghan forces to succeed in Afghanistan.”
The latest rift between the two nations comes as Afghanistan and its supporters prepare for a conference in Bonn, Germany, on Dec. 4 and 5 to mark the 10th anniversary of a similar gathering that helped form an Afghan government after the U.S. ousting of the Taliban in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and the Pentagon.
The U.S. is counting on Pakistan to help broker a peace deal in Afghanistan, drawing on its influence on Taliban militants whose leaders have their headquarters on Pakistani territory. Pakistan may boycott the conference because of the NATO strike.
“It’s very much in Pakistan’s interest to attend the Bonn conference because the focus of that is all about trying to build a more stable, peaceful Afghanistan,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters in Washington yesterday.
The relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan is “critical to the region’s stability,” Toner said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Viola Gienger in Washington at [email protected]; Haris Anwar in Islamabad at [email protected].
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at [email protected] ||||| Unfriendly Fire
The U.S. is bracing for a spike in terrorist attacks on its Afghan supply lines after 27 Pakistani soldiers were killed by a NATO helicopter—which may have been fired on from a Pakistani military post.
As if the U.S.–Pakistan relationship needed any more tensions, American military officials believe a NATO helicopter that killed up to 27 Pakistani soldiers on the Afghan border over the weekend may have been attacked first from within a Pakistani military post. And American officials are now bracing for the possibility of retaliatory strikes on U.S. supply lines.
The incident began in Kunar province in operations against a Salafi militia known as Jamaat Ud-Dawa Wal Quran. As the NATO forces pursued the militants across the porous border with Pakistan, an attack helicopter began to receive fire from bases at Pakistani border posts at Salala, U.S. military sources told The Daily Beast, speaking only on condition of anonymity.
“The NATO helicopter crossed the Afghanistan/Pakistan border in hot pursuit into Mohmand,” one U.S. military official said. “And in the process the helicopter took fire from Pakistani Army positions. We don’t know if this was fire from militants provided sanctuary at a Pakistani base or whether this was from the base itself.”
Officially, both the Pakistani government and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan have been tight-lipped about the incident. Pakistan has closed two border crossings between Pakistan and Afghanistan, effectively shutting down the supply routes between Pakistan and the allied forces in Afghanistan.
According to The New York Times, the Pakistanis also have closed the Shamsi air base in western Pakistan, the hub for the officially still secret CIA drone missions against suspected senior Taliban and al Qaeda operatives.
The incident has aggravated an already strained U.S.-Pakistani relationship. Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, called their Pakistani counterparts to try to smooth the tensions. Meanwhile, the White House said President Obama received regular updates on the incident from National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.
In many ways, the incident could not have come at a worse time for the U.S.-Pakistani relationship, which was already rocky after the disclosure of a memo attributed to President Asif Ali Zardari and the recently departed Pakistani ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, that offered to sack Pakistan’s military leadership and renew efforts to root out the Taliban.
One U.S. military official told The Daily Beast that the scandal in Pakistan, known as “memo-gate,” has played into the worst fears of Pakistan’s military leader, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and his deputies.
“The fact that we did not warn Kayani that Zardari or even his ambassador were plotting against him has played into all of the conspiracy-theory assumptions that run rampant at the highest levels of the Pakistani military,” this official said.
Kayani enjoyed a close personal relationship with Gen. Dempsey’s predecessor, Adm. Mike Mullen, until the final months of Mullen’s tenure. But before leaving his post, Mullen publicly accused Kayani’s military of knowingly allowing elements of the Haqqani network to attack U.S. positions in Afghanistan. Dempsey does not have the same personal relationship with the powerful Pakistani general.
“If there was no memo-gate, they would have closed the border for a few days and that would be that,” a U.S. military official said. “It would have been a demonstration, but we all would live. Now there is potential for this to spin out of control.”
The incident also comes as Pakistan’s military is negotiating a new peace deal with the country’s Taliban. If those negotiations succeed, it’s likely the Pakistani military will pull its already inconsistent support for fighting the Taliban in its own country, resuming its posture from 2006 and 2007, when al Qaeda’s leadership was able to rebuild its base in the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan. | Tensions are increasing over the NATO airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers Saturday, as Pakistan’s military claimed today that the attack lasted nearly two hours and that NATO ignored its pleas for a ceasefire. Commanders at both bases that were hit contacted NATO while the strikes were under way, but though they asked NATO to “get this fire to cease,” says an army spokesperson, “somehow it continued.” NATO, which has promised to investigate, called it a “tragic and unintended” incident, the AP reports. Pakistan has continued to insist the attack was unprovoked. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s prime minister warned there will be “no more business as usual” with Washington, telling CNN today that the country is re-evaluating that relationship. A top adviser to Afghan President Hamid Karzai adds that Afghanistan and Pakistan could be headed toward military conflict. Also today, Pakistan blocked 300 trucks carrying NATO supplies to Afghanistan; Bloomberg notes that Pakistani TV has shown traffic jams and stranded supply trucks near two border crossings. The strikes have incensed Pakistanis who were already angry at the US, leading one group to chant in a demonstration, “Whoever is a friend of America is a traitor to the land.” The Daily Beast notes that American officials are now concerned about increased attacks on US supply routes in retaliation. |
Outreach efforts by EAC representatives indicate that most employees support many portions of the legislative proposal under consideration by the Subcommittee but have concerns about provisions in the proposal related to pay. Specifically, employees generally support provisions that make the authorities provided to GAO for voluntary early retirement pay incentives permanent, to provide enhancements in vacation time and relocation expenses deemed necessary by the Comptroller General to recruit and retain top employees, and to establish a private sector exchange program. However, many employees are concerned about the provisions that change the way that annual pay decisions are made and, to a lesser extent, the proposed change to traditional protections for pay retention. Employees had differing opinions about the proposed change to GAO’s name. Most employees support the Comptroller General’s proposed provisions to make permanent GAO’s 3-year authority to offer voluntary early retirement and voluntary separation payments to provide flexibility to realign GAO’s workforce. In addition, GAO employees recognize that attracting and retaining high-quality employees and managers throughout the organization is vitally important for the future of GAO. Employees thus generally support the provisions to offer flexible relocation reimbursements, provide upper-level hires with 6-hour leave accrual, and establish an executive exchange program with private sector organizations. Most employees commented positively on these authorities so long as there are internal controls to monitor and report on their use, as are present to provide accountability for other authorities throughout GAO. Many employees expressed concern about the provisions that affect the determination of annual pay increases and pay retention. The opinions expressed by employees generally fall into three categories: (1) general concerns and some supporting views regarding changes in traditional civil service employment rules that could reduce the amount of annual pay increases provided for economic adjustments but provide greater opportunity for rewarding performance, (2) concerns about making a portion of annual economic adjustments variable based on performance assessment, and to a lesser extent (3) concerns about the loss of traditional pay retention protections. The first area of employee concern is proposed changes to traditional federal civil service employment rules that have historically provided a fixed annual increase for all federal employees determined by the President and the Congress. Government employees in general, and GAO employees in particular, often conduct work that can have far reaching implications and impacts. Such work can positively or negatively affect segments of the population and thereby the general public’s perceptions of, and reactions to, the federal government, including Members of Congress. Over the years, the Congress has developed a bulwark of protections to shield federal workers from reprisals that might result from their service as employees. Included among these has been the process by which federal employees’ salaries are annually adjusted as a result of the passage of, and signing into law, of the annual budget. The historical process relies on passage of legislation which includes an annual increase in pay to reflect increases in inflation and overall employment costs, followed by determinations by the President (and the Office of Personnel Management) to calculate the distribution of the legislative economic adjustments between an overall cost-of-living adjustment and locality-based increases to reflect differences in cities across the nation. The current mechanism for annual federal pay adjustments is found in Public Law 101-509, the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act. The Comptroller General has expressed his concern about trends in the executive branch that make it highly likely that the current civil service pay system will be the subject of comprehensive reform within the next few years. Citing federal agencies that already have many of these flexibilities, such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the new Department of Homeland Security, as well as agencies currently seeking reform, such as the Department of Defense, he has stated his belief that GAO needs to be “ahead of the curve.” Under the proposal, rather than relying on the administration’s determination and the Congress’ mandate for an annual salary adjustment, GAO can develop and apply its own methodology for the annual cost-of- living adjustments and compensation differences by locality that the Comptroller General believes would be more representative of the nature, skills, and composition of GAO’s workforce. Some employees have expressed following concerns. Removing GAO from the traditional process significantly alters a key element of federal pay protection that led some employees to seek employment in the federal sector. Changing this protection could diminish the attractiveness of federal service and result in the need for higher salaries to attract top candidates. A portion of appropriations historically intended to provide all federal employees with increases to keep pace with inflation and the cost of living in particular localities should not be tied to individual performance. GAO-based annual economic adjustments are more likely to be less than, rather than more than, amounts annually provided by the Congress; thus employees performing at lower (but satisfactory) levels who may not receive an equal or greater amount in the form of a bonus or dividend may experience an effective pay cut from amounts traditionally provided. The flexibility for the Comptroller General to use funds appropriated for cost-of-living adjustments for pay-for-performance purposes could imperil future GAO budgets by making that portion of the annual budget discretionary where it was once mandatory. The wide latitude provided in the proposal gives the Comptroller General broad discretion and limited accountability for determining whether employees receive annual across-the-board economic adjustments, the amount of such adjustments, and the timing of adjustments could result in unfair financial harm for some employees if the broad authorities were improperly exercised. The Comptroller General has not made a compelling case regarding the need for these pay-related and other legislative changes, for example by showing that existing cost-of-living adjustment mechanisms are inaccurate or that the agency has had difficulty in attracting and retaining high-quality employees. On the other hand, some employees also recognize that the proposed pay provisions may offer some distinct advantages for some employees. Some employees commented in support of the provision indicating that the existing system for calculating inflation and local cost adjustments may not accurately reflect reality; most employees would not likely be harmed by a system that allocates a greater share of pay to performance-based compensation; the authorities would allow GAO managers to provide greater financial rewards to the agency’s top performers, as compared to the present pay- for-performance system; making a stronger link between pay and performance could facilitate GAO’s recruitment of top talent. In addition, the provision may, to a limited extent, address a concern of some field employees by providing alternatives to reductions in force in times when mandated pay increases are not fully funded or in other extraordinary circumstances. For example, from 1992 to 1997, GAO underwent budgetary cuts totaling 33 percent (in constant fiscal year 1992 dollars.) To achieve these budgetary reductions, GAO staff was reduced by 39 percent, primarily through field office closures and the associated elimination of field-based employees. While we hope the agency will never again have to manage budget reductions of this magnitude, this provides a painful example of the vulnerability of staffing levels, particularly in the field, to budgetary fluctuations. The proposed pay provisions would provide the Comptroller General with greater flexibility to manage any future budget crises by adjusting the annual pay increases of all employees without adversely and disproportionately impacting the careers and lives of field-based employees. In addition to the revised basis for calculating annual economic adjustments, employees are concerned about the provision that transforms a portion of the annual pay increases that have historically been granted to federal employees for cost-of-living and locality-pay adjustments into variable, performance-based pay increases and bonuses. Because the GAO workforce is comprised of a wide range of highly qualified and talented people performing a similarly wide range of tasks, employees recognize that it is likely that some employees at times have more productive years with greater contributions than others. Therefore, most agree with the underlying principle of the provision to provide larger financial rewards for employees determined to be performing at the highest level. However, in commenting on the proposal, some employees said that GAO management already has multiple options to reward high performers through bonuses, placement in top pay-for-performance categories, and promotions. Others expressed concern that increased emphasis on individual performance could result in diminished teamwork, collaboration, and morale because GAO work typically is conducted in teams, often comprised of employees who are peers. “The PFP (pay-for-performance) process involves managers making very fine distinctions in staff’s performance in order to place them in discrete performance management categories. These categories set artificial limits on the number of staff being recognized for their contributions with merit pay and bonuses.” Related to concerns about subjectivity in the performance assessment system, Council representatives and employees expressed concern about data indicating that as a group, minorities, veterans, and field-based employees have historically received lower ratings than the employee population as a whole. While the data indicate that the disparity is considerably improved or eliminated for employees who have been with the agency fewer than 5 years, some employees have serious reservations about providing even greater discretion in allocating pay based on the current performance management system. To a lesser extent, some employees expressed concerns about the elimination of traditional federal employment rules related to grade and pay retention for employees who are demoted due to such conditions as a workforce restructuring or reclassification. The proposed legislation will allow the Comptroller General to set the pay of employees downgraded as a result of workforce restructuring or reclassification at their current rates (i.e., no drop in current pay), but with no automatic annual increase to basic pay until their salaries are less than the maximum rates of their new grades or bands. Employee concern, particularly among some Band II analysts and mission support staff, focuses on the extent to which this provision may result in a substantial erosion in future pay, since there is a strong possibility that these two groups may be restructured in the near future. For example, one observation is that the salary range within pay bands is such that senior analysts who are demoted would likely wait several years for their next increase in pay or bonus. In this circumstance, employees would need to reconcile themselves to no permanent pay increases regardless of their performance. Some employees cited this potential negative impact on staff motivation and productivity and emphasized that to continue providing service at the level of excellence that the Congress and the American people expect from GAO, this agency needs the best contributions of all its midlevel and journeymen employees. However, the EAC recognizes that, absent this kind of authority and given some of the authorities already provided to the Comptroller General, some employees who may be demoted could otherwise face termination rather than diminished salary increases. Finally, employees had differing opinions regarding the provision to change GAO’s name to the Government Accountability Office. Some employees are concerned that the proposed change in GAO’s name to more accurately reflect the work that we do will damage GAO’s “brand recognition.” Most employees who oppose the name change do not see the current name as an impediment to doing our work or to attracting quality employees. Some employees expressed concern that the legacy of high-quality service to the Congress that is embedded in the name “United States General Accounting Office” might be lost by changing the name. Other employees support the name change and cited their own experiences in being recruited or recruiting others and in their interaction with other federal agencies. In their opinion, the title “General Accounting Office” reflects misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions about GAO’s role and function by those who are not familiar with our operations and may serve as a deterrent to attracting employees who are otherwise not interested in accounting. We appreciate the Comptroller General’s efforts to involve the Employee Advisory Council and to solicit employee input through discussions of the proposal. As a result of employee feedback and feedback from GAO managers and the EAC, the Comptroller General has made a number of revisions and clarifications to the legislative proposal along with commitments to address concerns relating to the annual pay adjustment by issuing formal GAO policy to formally establish his intent to retain employees’ earning power in implementing the authorities; by revising the performance management system; and by deferring implementation of pay changes until 2005. Key among the commitments made by the Comptroller General is his assurance to explicitly consider factors such as cost-of-living and locality- pay differentials among other factors, both items that were not in the preliminary proposal. In addition, the Comptroller General has said that employees who are performing adequately will be assured of some annual increase that maintains spending power. He outlined his assurance in GAO’s weekly newsletter for June 30th that successful employees will not witness erosion in earning power and will receive an annual adjustment commensurate with locality-specific costs and salaries. According to the Comptroller General, pay protection commitments that are not included in the statute will be incorporated in the GAO orders required to implement the new authorities. This is consistent with the approach followed when GAO made similar pay protection commitments during the conversion to broad bands in the 1980s. To the extent that these steps are taken, overall employee opinion of the changes should improve because much of the concern has focused on making sure that staff who are performing adequately do not witness economic erosion in their pay. In response to concerns regarding the performance management system and the related variable elements of annual pay increases raised by the EAC, employees, and senior managers, the Comptroller General has told employees that he will provide increased transparency in the area of ratings distributions, for example by releasing summary-level performance appraisal results. In addition, the Comptroller General has stated that he plans to take steps to improve the performance management system that could further reduce any disparities. Specifically, on June 26, the Comptroller General released a "Performance Management System Improvement Proposal for the FY 2003 Performance Cycle" that outlines proposed short-term improvements to the analyst performance management system that applies to the majority of GAO employees. These include additional training for staff and performance managers and a reduction in the number of pay categories from five to four. A number of longer-term improvements to the performance appraisal system requiring validation are also under consideration, including weighting competencies and modifying, adding, or eliminating competencies. For all employees to embrace any additional pay-for-performance efforts, it is vital that the Comptroller General take steps that will provide an increased level of confidence that the appraisal process is capable of accurately identifying high performers and fairly distinguishing between levels of performance. Finally, the Comptroller General has agreed to delay implementation of the pay-for-performance provisions of the proposal until October 1, 2005. This change should provide an opportunity to assess efforts to improve the annual assessment process and lessen any impact of changes in the permanent annual pay increase process for employees approaching retirement. It should also provide an opportunity to implement a number of measures designed to improve confidence in the annual assessment process. In summary, as GAO employees we are proud of our work assisting the Congress and federal agencies to make government operations more efficient and effective. Although all of us would agree that our agency is not perfect, the EAC believes GAO is making a concerted effort to become a more effective organization. We will continue to work closely with management to improve GAO, particularly in efforts to implement and monitor any additional authorities granted to the Comptroller General. We believe that it is vital that we help to develop and implement innovative approaches to human capital management that will enable GAO to continue to meet the needs of the Congress; further improve the work environment to maximize the potential of our highly skilled, diverse, and dedicated workforce; and serve as a model for the rest of the federal government. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It 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 how the Comptroller General formed the Employee Advisory Council (EAC) about 4 years ago to be fully representative of the GAO population and to advise him on issues pertaining to both management and employees. The members of the EAC represent a variety of employee groups and almost all employees outside of the senior executive service (more than 3,000 of GAO's 3,200 employees or 94 percent). The EAC operates as an umbrella organization that incorporates representatives of GAO's long-standing employee organizations including groups representing the disabled, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, African-Americans, gays and lesbians, veterans, and women, as well as employees in various pay bands, attorneys, and administrative and professional staff. The EAC serves as an advisory body to the Comptroller General and other senior executives by (1) seeking and conveying the views and concerns of the individual employee groups it represents while being sensitive to the mutual interests of all employees, regardless of their grade, band, or classification group, (2) proposing solutions to concerns raised by employees, as appropriate, (3) providing input by assessing and commenting on GAO policies, procedures, plans, and practices and (4) communicating issues and concerns of the Comptroller General and other senior managers to employees. |
FILE - In this June 5, 2007 file photo, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt arrive at the premiere of "Ocean's Thirteen" in Los Angeles, Calif. Angelina Jolie Pitt has filed for divorce from Brad Pitt, bringing... (Associated Press)
FILE - In this June 5, 2007 file photo, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt arrive at the premiere of "Ocean's Thirteen" in Los Angeles, Calif. Angelina Jolie Pitt has filed for divorce from Brad Pitt, bringing an end to one of the world's most star-studded, tabloid-generating romances. An attorney for Jolie... (Associated Press)
NEW YORK (AP) — Brangelina is no more. Angelina Jolie Pitt has filed for divorce from Brad Pitt, bringing an end to one of the world's most star-studded, tabloid headline-generating romances.
An attorney for Jolie Pitt, Robert Offer, said Tuesday in a statement that she has filed for the dissolution of the marriage. Offer said the decision to divorce was made "for the health of the family."
Offer refused to answer questions about the divorce.
The couple has six children together: Maddox, Pax, Zahara, Shiloh, and twins Knox and Vivienne.
Though together for 12 years, Pitt and Jolie Pitt only wed in August 2014. They married privately in the French hamlet of Correns in Provence with their children serving as ring bearers and throwing flower petals. They announced the ceremony days later.
This is the second marriage for Pitt, who previously wed Jennifer Aniston. It's the third for Jolie Pitt, who was previously married to Billy Bob Thornton and Jonny Lee Miller.
Though their initial romance — begun after the pair starred together in 2005's "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" — sparked an avalanche of tabloid interest, Jolie Pitt and Pitt settled into their own unique kind of globe-trotting domesticity.
The pair adopted children from Cambodia, Vietnam and Ethiopia. And they sought to direct the glare of their celebrity toward other causes. Jolie Pitt, a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations, became an outspoken voice for refugees and various causes in Africa, as well as for breast cancer treatment after undergoing a double mastectomy.
Jolie Pitt also launched herself as a film director. Last year, the couple starred together in her "By the Sea," playing a glamorous couple vacationing together in France while their marriage was on the rocks. It made a mere $538,000 at the box office.
In a 2014 interview with The Associated Press, Jolie Pitt said playing a couple with marital problems was cathartic.
"It almost makes you get past those issues because you can laugh at them," Jolie Pitt said. "You do a film about bad marriage and you witness that behavior. You study it, you let it out, you attack each other and then you just want to hold each other and make sure you never behave that way." ||||| Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie were “dumped at the same time,” reveals In Touch. The magazine reports Aniston “laid into” Justin Theroux after their disappointing at-home one-year anniversary celebration. A source says, “She called him out for being a grump all week and for ruining what should have been a blissful time together,” prompting Theroux to call it quits and leaving Aniston “devastated.” As for Jolie, the publication reveals Brad Pitt “walked out” on her when she “went nuclear” after watching his love scenes with Marion Cotillard in the trailer for Allied. A source says the trailer “sent Jolie over the edge,” and an argument ensued, during which she was also furious that Pitt was back in touch with Aniston. Now, notes In Touch, Pitt is “done” with his marriage. While all very dramatic, neither Jolie nor Aniston have been “dumped” by their respective spouses. A rep for Aniston exclusively tells Gossip Cop, “They are insane at In Touch.” And a Pitt-Jolie insider also says the report is untrue. Sadly, Gossip Cop is not surprised by the falsity of the tabloid’s latest tale. In the last few months, Aniston’s rep denied the magazine’s June cover story that wrongly alleged she was pregnant, and a spokesperson for Pitt exclusively told Gossip Cop the outlet’s claim in July that he and Jolie were adopting a seventh child from Africa was also inaccurate.
Keeping Up With The Kardashians” is being canceled, according to the new edition of Star magazine. The publication reports that while Kris Jenner is “scrambling” to save the show from the chopping block, “not everyone in the fame-obsessed family is upset” about the cancelation. An insider tells the magazine, “Kris is absolutely desperate to save the show. But she can’t do that without her kids, and hardly anyone in the family wants to keep doing it.” “The show has turned into a grind for the kids,” explains the outlet’s source. Kim Kardashian’s husband Kanye West, notes Star as an example, is “encouraging the mom of two to move on” from the series. So, when’s the last episode of “Keeping Up With The Kardashians” going to air? Not for a long time. The show is not being canceled, Gossip Cop has learned. A rep for Kim Kardashian exclusively tells us the tabloid’s story about the E! show being canned is 100 percent “false.” Interestingly, the magazine made this same inaccurate claim in a March 2014 cover story that read, “Kardashians Canceled.” The allegation wasn’t true then, and it remains wrong today.
Jennifer Garner’s going to divorce Ben Affleck out of “revenge”? That’s what Life & Style reveals in its latest issue. The publication reports that after Affleck recently let her and the kids down again, Garner’s been “pushed over the edge” and will leave him for good. So, what happened that’s causing Garner to take “steps to wipe him from her life once and for all”? The magazine says after their three kids spent all day decorating the backyard of the family’s L.A. mansion for his birthday, Affleck was a no-show and only returned home the next day, blaming work for keeping him away. Now, Garner is “getting the ultimate revenge,” reports the magazine. An insider says Garner “wants Ben out of the house,” and has “decided to finally file divorce papers.” “She’s absolutely done with giving him any more chances…. She’s getting revenge on Ben by going through with the divorce,” adds the outlet’s source. There are a few problems with the Life & Style story, Gossip Cop can report. For starters, there were never plans for a birthday party in California, and Affleck never flaked on his kids. The family actually celebrated his birthday all together on a vacation in Montana. A source close to the situation exclusively tells Gossip Cop, “They just spent a lovely birthday weekend together with family and friends.” Our impeccable insider mockingly adds that the same publication reported earlier in the year that “they were pregnant; so can we really trust them?”
© FRANCIS SPECKER/Press Asscociation Sofia Richie, left, and Nicole Richie at the taping of the CBS television special "ACM Presents: Lionel Richie and Friends in Concert" at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas on April 2, 2012. Nicole Richie told her little sister Sofia to “ditch” Justin Bieber because he’s a “bad influence,” reveals OK!. In fact, the magazine notes Nicole is “begging” Sofia to “cut things off” with Bieber. According to a source, Nicole “sees through Justin,” and knows he likes to “bounce around from girl to girl.” “Nicole is really worried [Sofia’s] going to get hurt,” because the younger Richie is “sweet and young,” says the insider. The publication’s source adds, “Nicole thinks that Justin will be a bad influence or just end up breaking her heart.” Gossip Cop looked into the magazine’s claims, and we’ve learned that Nicole does not believe Bieber is a “bad influence” on Sofia, who recently turned 18. While Nicole is protective of her kid sister, she also knows Sofia is capable of handling herself. A Richie family insider exclusively assures Gossip Cop that Nicole never told Sofia to “ditch” Bieber. Our source says the tabloid’s claim is “not true” and a conversation like that “did not happen.” Of course, OK! hasn’t exactly been known for having accurate Richie sources. Gossip Cop busted the tabloid nearly a year ago when it wrongly reported Nicole and her husband Joel Madden were on the verge of divorcing. Much like that story, the current claim about Nicole warning her sister Sofia about Bieber is similarly false. ||||| Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Angelina Jolie has filed for divorce from Brad Pitt after learning he was cheating on her with his sexy co-star, a well-placed source told The Post on Tuesday.
“She hired a private eye because she felt that he was fooling around with her on the set, and it turns out, he was. And that was the final straw,’’ the source said.
Pitt, 52, had been rumored to have been cozying up to his “Allied’’ co-star Marion Cotillard, 40, for months during the pair’s filming of the World War II drama in London.
The PI discovered that Pitt was cheating on his wife of two years with Cotillard — while also partying like a single guy on a mission, the source said.
“The atmosphere [off-set] was full of hard drugs and Russian hookers, and Angie was told Brad got caught up in it,’’ the source said.
“He’s in the throes of some insane midlife crisis, and Angie is fed up.”
But a source close to Cotillard denied the Pitt affair rumors and insisted she is still with her long-term partner, French actor and director Guillaume Canet.
“They are still very much together. They have been a couple since 2007 and have one child but have never married,’’ the source said of Cotillard and Canet.
The source could not confirm French reports that Cotillard is pregnant with her second child with Canet.
That's hot: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were rumored to first connect on the set of their hit movie "Mrs. and Mrs. Smith" in 2005. Everett Collection Jolie and Pitt make a point to stand separately at the Los Angeles premiere of "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" on June 7, 2005. Getty Pitt and Jolie go public for the first time on a motorcycle ride in Edmonton, Canada, on Sept. 25, 2005. Splash Jolie, Pitt and kids Maddox and Zahara Jolie-Pitt land at Narita Airport in Tokyo on Nov. 27, 2005. Getty Pitt and a pregnant Jolie go on a U.N. goodwill trip to a school in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, on Jan. 13, 2006. Splash The jet-setting Jolie-Pitt clan touches down in Roissy Airport in Paris on March 4, 2006. Splash Pitt and Jolie attend a press conference in a Swakopmund, Namibia, hotel on June 7, 2006. Getty Jolie and Pitt escort Maddox and Zahara around Mumbai, India, on Nov. 12, 2006. Getty Pitt, Jolie, Maddox and Zahara Jolie-Pitt take a boat ride in Mumbai, India, on Nov. 18, 2006. Getty Pitt and Jolie ride motorcycles in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, on Nov. 23, 2006. Getty Pitt and Jolie arrive at the Golden Globes on Jan. 15, 2007 in Beverly Hills. Getty Pitt and Jolie leave the "Ocean's Thirteen" premiere in Cannes on May 24, 2007. Getty Jolie supports Pitt at the premiere of "Ocean's Thirteen" in Hollywood on June 5, 2007. Getty Pitt and Jolie look as loved up as ever at the Venice Film Festival on Sept. 2, 2007. Getty Pitt and Jolie get close at the "Beowulf" London premiere on Nov. 11, 2007. Getty Jolie and Pitt are joyous at the Screen Actors Guild Awards on Jan. 27, 2008. Getty Jolie and Pitt leave the Independent Spirit Awards on Feb. 23, 2008. Splash Pitt and Jolie arrive at the "Kung Fu Panda" premiere at the Cannes Film Festival on May 15, 2008. Getty Pitt holds a pregnant Jolie at the Cannes Film Festival on May 20, 2008. Getty Jolie and Pitt chuckle at the Los Angeles premiere of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" on Dec. 8, 2008. Getty Jolie and Pitt stay close at the Critics' Choice Awards in Santa Monica, Calif., on Jan. 8, 2009. Getty Pitt and Jolie shine at the Golden Globes on Jan. 11, 2009 in Beverly Hills. Getty The couple coordinates at the Paris premiere of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" on Jan. 22, 2009. Getty Jolie and Pitt laugh at the Academy Awards in Los Angeles on Feb. 22, 2009. Pitt and Jolie pose at the Cannes Film Festival on May 20, 2009. Getty Pitt and Jolie take their kids to see "Mary Poppins" on Broadway on Jan. 3, 2010. Splash Jolie clutches Pitt at the Hollywood premiere of "Salt" on July 19, 2010. Getty Pitt and Jolie attend the Rome premiere of "The Tourist" on Dec. 15, 2010. Getty Pitt and Jolie arrive at the Golden Globes on Jan. 16, 2011 in Beverly Hills. Getty Jolie and Pitt laugh at the Los Angeles premiere of "Kung Fu Panda 2" on May 22, 2011. Getty Pitt holds Jolie close at the Cannes Film Festival on May 16, 2011. Getty Pitt, Jolie and their brood arrive in Haneda Airport in Tokyo on Nov. 7, 2011. Splash Jolie, Pitt and the tykes land in Con Dao, Vietnam, on Nov. 11, 2011. Getty Jolie poses with Pitt and his parents at the New York premiere of "In the Land of Blood and Honey" on Dec. 5, 2011. Getty Pitt beams at Jolie at the Palm Springs International Film Festival on Jan. 7, 2012. Getty Jolie and Pitt arrive at the Golden Globes on Jan. 15, 2012 in Beverly Hills. Getty Pitt and Jolie joke at the Berlin premiere of "In the Land of Blood and Honey" on Feb. 11, 2012. Getty Pitt keeps his arm around his lady at the Cinema for Peace Gala on Feb. 13, 2012 in Berlin. Getty Pitt, Jolie and that infamous leg arrive at the Oscars on Feb. 26, 2012. Getty Jolie and Pitt attend the London premiere of "World War Z" on June 2, 2013. Getty Jolie supports Pitt at the Berlin premiere of "World War Z" on June 4, 2013. Getty Jolie and Pitt have a special guest at the Governors Awards on Nov. 16, 2013 in Hollywood: son Maddox. Getty Jolie and Pitt attend the British Academy Film Awards on Feb. 16 in London. Getty Jolie and Pitt attend the Academy Awards on March 2 in Hollywood. Getty Pitt and Jolie beam at one another at the "Maleficent" London premiere on May 8. Getty Pitt and Jolie share a smile at the Hollywood premiere of "Maleficent" on May 28. Getty Jolie, Pitt and their brood go for a stroll in the New Orleans French Quarter on March 20, 2011. Splash Jolie and Pitt attend the Global Summit To End Sexual Violence In Conflict in London on June 13, 2014. Getty Images Jolie and Pitt arrive at LAX with Zahara on June 14. Splash The pair attend the 15th Annual AFI Awards Luncheon on Jan. 9, 2015 in Beverly Hills, California. Getty Images The duo attend a screening of "By the Sea" on Nov. 3, 2015 in New York City. Getty Images Pitt, Jolie and Anna Wintour chat at the WSJ. Magazine 2015 Innovator Awards at the Museum of Modern Art on Nov. 4, 2015. Getty Images Jolie and Pitt attend the premiere of "By the Sea" during the AFI Fest on Nov. 5, 2015. Getty Images Jolie and Pitt attend a party for "By the Sea" on Nov. 5, 2015. Getty Images Ad Up Next Close Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to divorce The Oscar winner cited irreconcilable differences as the reason for their... 54 View Slideshow Back Continue Share this: Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Flipboard
WhatsApp
Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
Click to copy URL
Advertisement
Jolie’s manager, Geyer Kosinski, said Tuesday, “Angelina will always do what’s in the best interest to protect her children.
“She appreciates everyone’s understanding of their need for privacy at this time,’’ he told E! News.
Pitt added in a statement to People magazine, “I am very saddened by this, but what matters most now is the well-being of our kids.
“I kindly ask the press to give them the space they deserve during this challenging time.”
In addition to her husband’s alleged affair, Jolie, 41, was sick and tired of constantly sparring over their lifestyle, another source told The Post.
She has increasingly wanted to quit Hollywood in favor of devoting herself full-time to traveling the globe for her humanitarian work, while Pitt prefers Tinseltown and its parties, the source said.
Jolie spoke before the United Nations in Manhattan just this past Friday to ask them to help millions of Syrian refugees.
“The older she gets, the more serious she becomes, and she is sick of the Hollywood thing,’’ the second source said.
“He wants to make movies. She doesn’t. It’s a fundamental difference. It’s how you live your life.’’
Making matters worse, Pitt is closer to Jolie’s famous actor dad, Jon Voight, than she is, the source said.
“Jon’s a Hollywood guy, and she’s been estranged. Brad hangs out with her father more than she does,’’ the source said.
Another source told TMZ that Jolie believes that her hubby’s drinking and pot-smoking is affecting their kids.
Add to that his “anger problem,” and the mom of six said enough is enough, the source told the website.
Jolie filed for divorce Monday, citing “irreconcilable differences.”
She is seeking physical custody of the couple’s kids, TMZ said. She doesn’t want Pitt to have joint physical custody, just joint legal custody. He would get visitation, according to her filing.
Jolie is not seeking spousal support, the website said.
Brangelina’s French chateau, Miraval — where the couple married in August 2014 — has been quietly on the market for a few months, and locals were told they were selling it because they are breaking up, a source told The Post.
Jolie has hired top gun Laura Wasser as her lawyer.
The court documents list the couple’s date of separation as Sept. 15, 2016.
The couple have been together since 2004.
A rep for Cotillard did not immediately get back to The Post. ||||| It certainly seems like no Hollywood relationship can last without at least one accusation of cheating.
Angelina Jolie has reportedly filed for divorce from Brad Pitt after 2 years of marriage (and 10 years together), citing “irreconcilable differences” as the reason for the split.
According to TMZ, Jolie couldn’t handle the way that Pitt parented their six children and asked for physical custody of the kids, only granting Pitt visitation.
RELATED: Pippa Middleton shoots down claims that her life is all about looks and wealth
But, rumors of an affair have been swirling around the couple for a while. Basically every tabloid at the checkout line of any grocery store is littered with scandal about celebrities. Jolie and Pitt have been the victims of countless bogus news stories throughout the year. Pitt’s ex-wife Jennifer Aniston is often the target of pregnancy rumors too. There’s no escaping it. Most of us ignore it.
But what if they get it right?
In May, Hollywood Life, a noted gossip rag, ran a story that claimed Pitt was stepping out of his marriage and having an affair with his “Five Seconds of Silence” costar Marion Cotillard.
“For a while, the excitement of getting married masked their troubles,” Hollywood Life reported of Jolie and Pitt at the time, “but lately, they’ve been having explosive fights. Neither of them is sure that they can or should, hang on anymore.”
The tabloid claimed that a friend of the couple said that Jolie’s behavior was driving Pitt away. The insider claimed that Jolie “barely eats, she guzzles wine every night and she smokes constantly,” adding that for Pitt, “it’s been hard to watch the woman he loves waste away.”
RELATED: Twitter pulls Jennifer Aniston into the Brad and Angie breakup news with the most hilarious memes
The story reported that Pitt denied any relationship with Cotillard other than a professional one.
Shortly after the news of the divorce broke, Page Six reported that an affair is exactly what pushed Jolie to her breaking point.
“She hired a private eye because she felt that he was fooling around with her on the set, and it turns out, he was. And that was the final straw,” a source claimed. Pitt and Cotillard were reportedly spotted canoodling all over London for the last few months.
The couple has been somewhat rocky lately since Jolie reportedly dreams of leaving Hollywood to focus on her humanitarian work, but Pitt longs for the spotlight.
“The older she gets, the more serious she becomes, and she is sick of the Hollywood thing,” the source said. “He wants to make movies. She doesn’t. It’s a fundamental difference. It’s how you live your life.”
No word if this rumored affair is real, but it sure seems suspicious. | Those rumors you may have seen recently in the supermarket tabloids were true: Angelina Jolie has filed for divorce from Brad Pitt. TMZ confirms the news, and says Jolie filed Monday and lists the date of separation as Sept. 15. TMZ reports that there was no cheating involved (though Page Six claims Jolie busted Pitt having an affair with co-star Marion Cotillard), just a fight over how Pitt parents the couple's six children. Jolie is seeking sole physical custody of the kids, with Pitt being granted only visitation, a request TMZ calls "significant." An attorney for Jolie Pitt, Robert Offer, said the decision to divorce was made "for the health of the family," per AP. TMZ sources say that Jolie was "fed up" with Pitt's substance abuse, including pot and booze, combined with what she saw as anger issues. This tweet from BuzzFeed writer Anne Helen Petersen pretty much sums up general response: "I haven't heard a gasp go through the newsroom like the news of Jolie Pitt Divorce THIS ENTIRE ELECTION." (Click for 11 other great reactions to the split or more on the Cotillard rumors.) |
Related: Coats Faces Senate Amid New Claims of Trump Interference
But Rogers declined to directly address what the president asked of him, as did Coats.
"I have never felt pressured to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or intervene in an investigation," Coats said.
Warner responded, "You may not have felt pressured, but if he is even asking, to me that is a very relevant piece of information. At some point these facts have to come out."
Coats declined to address a Washington Post report Tuesday that Trump urged him to ask FBI Director James Comey to back off the Russia investigation.
"At some point these facts have to come out." "At some point these facts have to come out."
He told Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., that he hoped to discuss it in a closed hearing, out of public view.
NBC News has reported that Trump asked Coats and Rogers on separate occasions to state that they had seen no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russia. Both men believed the request was inappropriate, and Trump's conversation with Rogers was documented in a memo, a former senior intelligence official said.
Lawmakers took their refusal to comment as confirmation that such conversations did indeed take place.
"If you could say" the reports weren't true, "you would say that," said Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island.
The hearing came a day ahead of what promises to be a dramatic day of testimony before the same committee by former FBI Director James Comey, who will discuss what he felt were inappropriate requests made to him by Trump, sources close to him say.
As Wednesday's hearing proceeded, Democrats appeared to grow increasingly frustrated and angry about refusal by the two intelligence officials to answer questions about the conversations with the president.
Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with the Democrats, asked Rogers whether he was invoking executive privilege, a legal doctrine that shields some presidential conversations from disclosure. He said he was not.
(L-R) Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on June 7. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
"Then why are you not answering the question?" King asked.
"Because I feel it is inappropriate, Senator," Rogers replied.
"What you feel is not relevant, Admiral, what you feel isn't the answer," King interjected.
Rogers said he stood by his refusal, but he did not mean it in "a contentious way."
"Well I do mean that in contentious way," King replied.
Later in the hearing, Republican Sen. McCain said it would be "more than disturbing, obviously. If it's true that the president of the United States is trying to get the director of national intelligence and others to abandon the investigation into Russian involvement, it's pretty serious."
"What you feel is not relevant, Admiral, what you feel isn't the answer." "What you feel is not relevant, Admiral, what you feel isn't the answer."
Senators also expressed frustration with FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe, who refused to discuss conversatiions he had with former director James Comey about Comey's interactions with Trump.
McCabe said he couldn't discuss anything that could fall within the purview of the special counsel's investigation.
"You don't think the American people deserve an answer to that?" asked Sen. Martin Heinrich, D.-New Mexico, who pointed out that Trump discussed the firing of Comey in an interview with NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt.
Senators and witnesses also spent considerable time discussing the stated purpose of the hearing, reauthorization of a key surveillance law known as Section 702. All of the officials and many of the senators expressed support for the reauthorization, though some, including King, suggested that some new privacy protections would be needed.
Section 702 was passed as part of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, when Congress decided to essentially legalize what had been known as the warrantless wiretapping program.
The provision allows the U.S. to eavesdrop on the communications of foreigners outside the U.S. even when those communications traverse the U.S., including on networks run by big American tech companies, something that previously required a FISA warrant. In the process of targeting foreigners, the NSA sweeps in the communications of many Americans who are in communication with those foreigners.
Then-Sen. Barack Obama voted for the provision, much to the chagrin of civil liberties activists who saw it as compromising the Fourth Amendment's protections against unfettered government searches.
In 2013, leaker Edward Snowden exposed how the law was being used. Under the PRISM program, the government was ordering U.S. tech companies to turn over huge swaths of data. The targets were foreigners, but the data of many Americans was also being captured.
However, the program was considered so valuable by counterterrorism officials and their elected overseers that the Snowden disclosures resulted in no substantial changes to it. That's in contrast with the other major disclosure, the collecting of U.S. domestic calling records under Section 215 of the 2008 act. That program, which wasn't particularly useful, was completely overhauled in the wake of Snowden.
But Section 702 survived unscathed until recently, when the government announced that it would no longer collect American-to-American communications about a foreign intelligence target.
Section 702 must be reauthorized by the end of this year by Congress, or it expires.
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats appears before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, June 7. Alex Brandon / AP
Many lawmakers have growing misgivings about it. The controversy over "unmasking" the names of Americans in intelligence reports, which many officials believe is bogus, has fueled those concerns. Republicans are increasingly concerned about whether the privacy of Americans is being sufficiently protected.
One of the main things that bothers civil libertarians about how 702 is used is that once data on Americans is collected and deemed relevant intelligence, it is stored for five years, and the FBI can search it for nearly any reason without a warrant.
That means information collected without a warrant, and queries without a warrant, can be used to prosecute an American.
"It strikes me as bootstrapping to say we collected it legally under 702 and then we can go look at these American persons," King said during the hearing. "I believe that the Fourth Amendment imposes a warrant requirement."
But when a presidential commission recommended that Obama change that provision, he declined. The FBI told him the warrantless searches were extremely useful.
Now, a coalition of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats has banded together to seek to hold up reauthorization as it presses for more privacy protections.
Related: Ex-CIA Director: 'Interactions' Between Trump Campaign and Russia
If the provision expires, it would cause huge problems for the intelligence agencies that rely on it to hunt terrorists and spy on China and Russia, the intelligence officials told lawmakers.
The federal Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board concluded in 2014 that Section 702 data has led to "well over 100 arrests on terrorism-related offenses," and stopped about 15 plots in the U.S. and 40 in other countries.
More than a quarter of the NSA's reports about international terrorism include information based in whole or in part on Section 702, the board said. ||||| Top intelligence leaders testified Wednesday at 10 a.m. ET before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Scheduled to testify:
Dan Coats -- Director of national intelligence
Andrew McCabe -- Acting FBI director
Mike Rogers -- NSA director
Rod Rosenstein -- Deputy attorney general
HIGHLIGHTS:
Rogers, Coats decline to comment on conversations they've had with Trump, though Rogers said he's never "been directed to do anything illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate" as NSA director
The four officials decline to discuss whether they've taken notes or issued memos related to the Russia probe
Burr rips witnesses for not answering questions surrounding Comey firing and Russia probe
The hearing was focused on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), though there were a slew of questions involving the firing of former FBI Director James Comey and Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.
This comes a day before Comey is set to testify publicly before Congress for the first time on Thursday since President Trump fired him as FBI director last month.
See live updates of Wednesday's hearing below.
Burr rips witnesses for not answering questions
Burr said he had one final message that he wants the witnesses to deliver to the Trump administration. He said that in cases where there's sensitivity of activities, there is a mechanism for congressional oversight whereby officials can brief and notify the Gang of Eight, which includes congressional leadership in both the House and Senate and on both sides of the aisle.
"At no time, should you be in a position to come to Congress without an answer," Burr warned them.
Warner says "the president is not above the law"
Warner said that he's come out of the hearing "with more questions than when I went in." He said that Coats and Rogers were both willing to characterize their conversations with the president, arguing that they didn't feel pressure, but Warner ridiculed them for not sharing the content of those discussions.
Warner said he's "pretty frustrated" that there is a deference to a special prosecutor and he said while their "feelings response" is important, so is the contents of their communications with Trump.
"The president is not above the law," Warner said.
Warner asked if it would be concerning if the president intervened in an investigation.
"If anybody obstructs an investigation, that would be a subject of concern," Rosenstein said, adding that it would investigated appropriately.
Cotton seeks to clarify how 702 works with U.S. citizens
Cotton, who has introduced a permanent extension of FISA, asked the officials if FISA's Sec. 702 allows the intelligence agencies to collect information on U.S. citizens. Rogers explained that they collect intelligence on foreigners outside the U.S. since NSA is a foreign intelligence organization. Rosenstein explained that if a foreigner is inside the U.S., the intelligence agencies have to rely on other provisions of FISA. Cotton asked McCabe what happens if an ISIS terrorist comes to the U.S., and he said that the NSA notifies the FBI and they work together to pursue coverage under a FISA statute.
King grills Rogers and Coats about why they're not answering questions
Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, spent several minutes grilling Rogers and Coats about why they aren't answering questions regarding the Comey firing or the Russia probe.
Asked if the White House was invoking executive priviledge, Rogers said he wasn't aware of that. King then asked why he isn't answering questions. Rogers said, "I feel it isn't appropriate, senator" and added that he stands by his comment and he's not going to repeat himself and he said he doesn't mean it in a contentious way. King said that his questions are intended to be contentious.
McCabe explains FBI involvement with 702
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, asked McCabe what happens when the FBI wants to follow up on or pursue a U.S. person in or outside the U.S. McCabe explained that they would seek a FISA warrant under Title I. Asked if the FBI ever seeks collection under 702, McCabe said that if the FBI has a full investigation on a foreign person in a foreign place, the bureau would nominate that person for 702 coverage at the NSA.
McCabe is asking about his conversations with Comey
Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-New Mexico, asked McCabe if he had a conversation with Comey about the president asking for Comey's loyalty. McCabe said he isn't in a position to comment because those matters fall within the scope of the special counsel's investigation. McCabe said he wants Comey to speak for himself when he testifies before the Intelligence panel on Thursday morning.
Wyden asks officials whether they ever took notes or issued memos related to Russia probe
Coats said he doesn't take notes, Rosenstein said he rarely takes notes and that he's not going to answer questions on the Russia investigation. McCabe said he's not going to comment on any conversations he's had or if he wrote any notes. Rogers echoed that answer.
Rubio presses officials whether anyone has asked them to influence an ongoing probe
The Florida Republican asked if Coats and Rogers have ever been asked to influence an ongoing investigation. Coats said he's not prepared to answer in an open session. Rubio asked them if anyone ever asked them to issue a statement that wasn't true and Rogers and Coats refused to answer.
Rogers explains the NSA's unmasking process
The unmasking process for the NSA, Rogers said, is defined in writing and in terms of who has the authority to unmask, he said there are 20 individuals in 12 different positions including Rogers. He said that the NSA outlines in writing what criteria will be applied in the request to unmask.
Rogers said that when a U.S. person is referenced in an intelligence report, they don't identify the person. Some of the recipients of the report, he said, will sometimes come back to the NSA and ask who the unnamed individuals are.
The criteria: He said that the recipient must request in writing that the person's identity be unmasked, the request must be made on the basis of the official's duties and the basis of the request must be that the official needs the identity to understand the intelligence he or she is reading. One of the 20 individuals, he said, would then agree or disagree to unmask and if the NSA unmasks, the unmasking goes back only to the person who made the request.
Coats also declines to comment on specific conversations with Trump
Warner brought up reports about the president asking Rogers and Coats to downplay the Russia investigation and that the president asked him and the CIA director to intervene with then-FBI Director James Comey.
Coats said he doesn't believe "it's appropriate for me to address that in a public session."
Rogers comments on report that Trump asked him to downplay Russia probe
Warner raised reports about the president asking Rogers and Coats to downplay the Russia investigation. He asked Rogers whether in his experience, if it would be typical for the president to ask questions, to bring up an ongoing FBI probe, particularly if that probe involves people associated with the president or his campaign.
Rogers said he's "not going to discuss theoreticals" and he's not going to discuss specific conversations with the president. But, he said he would make one comment. He said in the more than 3 years that he has served as NSA director, he said, "I've never been directed to do anything illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate." He said he does not "recall feeling pressured" to do something.
Warner said he's disappointed with his answer.
Coats reveals case that he classified to illustrate the value of Sec. 702
He said that as a result of 702, the U.S. was able to find and kill ISIS's finance minister, Haji Iman, in March 2016. Coats said that the NSA, along with its intelligence community partners, spent over two years from 2014 to 2016 looking for Iman.
He explained that the NSA learned of a person "closely associated" with Iman and collected intelligence on the associate, forming a robust network. The NSA and its tactical partners, Coats said, combined the information and was able to identify Iman and track his movements. This allowed U.S. forces, he said, to attempt an apprehension of Iman in March 2016. The operation led to shots being fired at U.S. forces, which led to the killing of Iman and other associates at that location.
Coats defends FISA's Sec. 702, urges Congress to reauthorize the surveillance program
Coats, the director of national intelligence, in his opening joint statement, said that intelligence collection under 702 has produced and continues to produce "significant intelligence" that he said is "vital" to protect the nation from international terrorism, cyber threats and proliferation. He said it contains strong protections for privacy.
Coats said that since FISA was implemented a decade ago, there has been rigorous oversight over the program.
He said that in the nearly 10 years since Congress enacted legislation that established FISA there have been "no instances" of intentional violations of 702. He said that it may not be used to target U.S. persons anywhere in the world and cannot be used to target anyone in the U.S., regardless of their nationality.
"We have never, not once, found an intentional violation of the program. There have been unintended mistakes," he said. "None of these mistakes has been intentional."
Warner says he will address reports surrounding Comey firing, Russia probe
Warner, the top Democrat on the panel, acknowledged reports that Trump was thinking of the Russia probe when he fired Comey as FBI director. He said that lawmakers will have the opportunity Wednesday to ask Rosenstein about his role in the Comey firing. He highlighted reports that said that the president asked at least two leaders of the intelligence agencies to publicly downplay the Russia investigation and asked Coats and CIA Director Pompeo to pull back on the Russia probe.
"If any of this is true, it would be an appalling and improper use of our intelligence professionals," Warner said.
Burr highlights need to approve "critical" foreign intelligence surveillance tool
The chairman said that the panel's hearing highlights the most critical foreign intelligence tool -- FISA -- which he said expires on Dec. 31 unless Congress reauthorizes it. He spoke about Sec. 702 of Title 7 which he said provides the capability to target foreigners located outside the U.S. but whose foreign communications happen to be routed to and acquired in the U.S.
Burr said that the program is "exceptionally critical" to protecting Americans at home and abroad and in preventing terror attacks.
He acknowledged that there may be discussion about Russian interference in the 2016 election. ||||| Story highlights Testifying Wednesday: Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, a former senator
Also testifying: Acting Director FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein
(CNN) Two US intelligence agency chiefs refused to say on the record Wednesday whether President Donald Trump asked them to downplay investigations into whether there was collusion between Russia and Trump's presidential campaign last year.
When asked by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida during a Senate intelligence committee hearing, "Are prepared to say you have never been asked?" Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers declined to answer.
"I am not prepared to go down that road right now," Coats said. Rogers referred to earlier statements he made saying he wouldn't comment on conversations with the President.
Both men said they have never felt pressured from Trump's administration to intervene in investigations into Russian meddling into the US election, contradicting reports that the President had previously asked them to downplay the probe.
"I have never felt pressured to intervene in the Russia investigation in any way," Coats told members of the Senate intelligence committee when asked about such reports. | Two top intelligence officials say they never felt pressured by President Trump to intervene in investigations on possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign—though they refused to say whether Trump had at least asked them to do so. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers were questioned Wednesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee, CNN reports. According to NBC News, there were reports Tuesday that Trump had asked both men to publicly say they hadn't seen any evidence of collusion and asked Coats specifically to ask former FBI Director James Comey to ease off the investigation. Rogers told the committee he hadn't been asked to do anything he felt was "illegal, immoral, unethical, or inappropriate." And Coats refused to discuss it, saying he is "not prepared to go down that road right now." Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner was frustrated that both men said they didn't feel pressure from the Trump administration but wouldn't specify what was discussed during conversations with the president, CBS News reports. He said he left the hearing "with more questions than when I went in." Also being interviewed by the committee Wednesday were acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. |
Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
/ Updated By Yuliya Talmazan and Aziz Akyavas
A Turkish court on Friday ordered the release from house arrest of an American pastor at the heart of a diplomatic dispute between Turkey and the U.S., a day after NBC News reported the two countries had struck a deal to allow him to walk free.
The court sentenced Andrew Brunson to three years and one-and-a-half months in prison after convicting him on terrorism charges. But he was ordered released on time served and allowed to leave the country after spending nearly two years in detention.
The North Carolina native broke down in tears when the decision was announced, witnesses said. He had earlier made an impassioned plea to the judge: "I am an innocent man. I love Jesus. I love Turkey."
Andrew Brunson, center, sits inside a car as he arrives for his trial in Izmir Friday. DHA / AP
Brunson, 50, was one of two dozen Americans charged with helping Kurdish militants and supporters of Fethullah Gulen, the cleric whom Turkey blames for plotting a failed coup attempt in 2016.
The Trump administration immediately demanded his release, triggering a diplomatic standoff.
Brunson was facing a possible sentence of up to 35 years in prison if convicted on all charges, which included espionage.
News of his release was celebrated by politicians and religious leaders across the U.S.
President Trump tweeted, "Pastor Brunson just released. Will be home soon."
Reached by phone, Brunson's daughter Jacqueline Furnari, 20, told NBC News she was elated by the news.
"I am still in shock," she said from Texas. "It’s just amazing after two years of going through this ordeal, he is finally coming home."
Following the court hearing, Brunson was seen returning to his home in the Turkish coastal province of Izmir, according to Reuters. He was expected to depart for the U.S. in the coming hours.
There was some initial confusion over Brunson's travel plans after the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative group that has been working on the pastor's release, said he was already on a plane.
On Thursday, NBC News learned that the White House expected Brunson to be released by the Turkish government and returned to the U.S. in the coming days.
Senior administration officials said Brunson was freed as part of a deal the Trump administration cut with the Turkish government in the past couple of weeks. Under the agreement the U.S. is to lift sanctions Trump imposed on Turkey in August after Turkey refused to release Brunson despite repeated talks between U.S. and Turkish officials.
The breakthrough came as Turkey is seeking support from the U.S. in the case of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist who vanished after visiting the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul earlier this month. The Turkish government is "100 percent confident" that Khashoggi, a Saudi citizen and outspoken critic of his country's rulers, was killed inside the consulate, a Turkish official told NBC News.
Trump denied there was a deal made for Brunson's release upon his arrival in Ohio for a Friday evening rally. The president told reporters that Brunson's return "has nothing to do with anything" and that the government has been trying to get him released for "a long time."
"But we're happy to have him and have him in good shape. I hear he's in very good shape," Trump said.
The White House released a statement on Friday commending the "strength shown by Pastor Brunson and his family over a difficult two years." The White House statement added that it remained "deeply concerned" about the detention of other U.S citizens in Turkey.
Evangelist Franklin Graham, son of the late pastor Billy Graham, had spent years using his considerable platform to advocate for Brunson's release. Graham told NBC Newsthat he had spoken personally to Trump about Brunson's situation while he was being detained and that he "didn't even have to put it on their radar."
"And several times I have been at the White House, the president has mentioned 'we are gonna get this man back,'" Graham said. "And so I am just grateful we did what we could to try and make publicity for it, to make people aware."
Earlier Friday, heavy security greeted Brunson as he arrived to the courthouse in a convoy of vehicles before daybreak. Brunson appeared in the courtroom wearing a black suit, white shirt and red tie. His wife, Norine, looked on from the visitors' seating area as he listened to testimony from defense and prosecution witnesses.
"I do not understand how this is related to me," Brunson said after the judge questioned one of a series of witnesses heard before a lunch recess. He said the judge was asking the witness about incidents Brunson was not involved in.
Witnesses also told the court that previous testimony attributed to them against the pastor was inaccurate.
One denied telling prosecution witness Levent Kalkan that a member of Brunson's church was linked to militants.
"I did not say it to Mr. Kalkan. I heard it from him," the witness said.
"I am really shocked now," Kalkan responded. Kalkan also told the court that some of his previous testimony had been "misunderstood.”
Brunson who has lived in Turkey for more than two decades, rejected the charges and strongly maintained his innocence. He is one of thousands caught up in a widespread government crackdown that followed the failed coup against the Turkish government.
Yuliya Talmazan reported from London; Aziz Akyavaz from Izmir. ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
/ Updated By Carol E. Lee and Courtney Kube
WASHINGTON — The White House expects North Carolina pastor Andrew Brunson to be released by the Turkish government and returned to the U.S. in the coming days, two years after he was detained, according to two senior administration officials and another person briefed on the matter.
Under an agreement senior Trump administration officials recently reached with Turkey, Brunson is supposed to be released after certain charges against him are dropped at his next court hearing, currently scheduled for Friday, the senior administration officials and a person briefed on the matter said.
The details of the deal are unclear, but those familiar with the discussions said it includes a commitment by the U.S. to ease economic pressure on Turkey.
The Trump administration, however, isn't fully confident that Turkey will follow through with the Brunson agreement because Ankara was close to a commitment to release him several months ago but did not, one senior administration official said.
"We continue to believe Pastor Brunson is innocent, and the hearing on Friday is another opportunity for the Turkish judicial system to free an American citizen," a third senior administration official said.
Two senior administration officials said the White House had not been notified of any change in Brunson’s Oct. 12 court hearing as of Thursday morning.
A spokesperson for the Turkish embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. The White House declined to comment on the record and the Brunson family said they are also not commenting at this time.
The Turkish government has accused Brunson of helping terrorist groups, charges he has denied. The Trump administration has aggressively pushed for his release, saying he was wrongfully detained. In July, Turkey released Brunson from prison and moved him to house arrest. He faces a possible sentence of up to 35 years in prison if convicted.
Pastor Andrew Craig Brunson is escorted by Turkish plainclothes police officers to his house on in Izmir on July 25, 2018. AFP - Getty Images file
An agreement on Brunson’s release was advanced in discussions last month between Turkish and U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton, during the gathering of world leaders for the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the senior administration officials and person briefed on the matter said.
The White House does not plan to publicly address Brunson’s release in advance of his court hearing out of concern that doing so would jeopardize it. Officials from both countries have signaled Brunson’s possible release in recent weeks.
In remarks to the Jewish Institute for National Security of America on Wednesday, Pompeo referred to Brunson’s situation, saying that releasing the pastor would be the "humanitarian thing for Turkey to do."
"I am very hopeful that before too long Pastor Brunson will, he and his wife will be able to return to the United States," Pompeo added.
Brunson is an evangelical pastor from Black Mountain, North Carolina. He has spent more than two decades living in Turkey, where he ran the Resurrection Church in the western city of Izmir. He was detained in Turkey in October 2016 and charged with helping individuals Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says were behind a failed coup earlier that year.
Brunson’s imprisonment has increasingly strained the relationship between the Trump administration and Turkey, a NATO ally. Brunson’s release could be more likely given that his court hearing comes at a time when Turkey is seeking U.S. support for challenging Saudi Arabia in response to the disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Brunson’s release "could reset Trump and Erdogan’s relationship," Cagaptay said.
Administration officials have said the release of Brunson, as well as other Americans, would be a significant step toward mending ties between the U.S. and Turkey.
"This administration has been actively engaged in seeking Pastor Brunson’s release for months, along with NASA scientist Serkan Golge and the employees of the U.S. mission in Turkey," the third senior administration official said. "A positive development in the cases of Pastor Brunson, Serkan Golge, and local employees of the U.S. mission in Turkey would do much to improve confidence and to restore the bilateral relationship."
Vice President Mike Pence has been a leading critic of Brunson’s detainment and advocate for his immediate release.
Trump announced economic sanctions against Turkey in August after talks with Ankara failed to result in Brunson’s release. He also has publicly called for Erdogan to release Brunson.
"A total disgrace that Turkey will not release a respected U.S. Pastor, Andrew Brunson, from prison. He has been held hostage far too long," Trump wrote on Twitter in July. "He has done nothing wrong, and his family needs him!"
According to the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, Erdogan told reporters this week when asked about Brunson: "I must obey whatever the decision the judiciary gives." ||||| IZMIR, Turkey (Reuters) - A U.S. pastor was flown out of Turkey on Friday after a court freed him from two years of detention, in a step that could improve U.S.-Turkish ties strained by disputes over Syria, Iran and Ankara’s planned purchase of Russian military equipment.
Pastor Andrew Brunson was expected to land at Joint Base Andrews near Washington at around noon EDT (1600 GMT) on Saturday after a stop in Germany for a medical check-up.
Brunson was jailed two years ago and had been under house arrest since July. He was accused of links to Kurdish militants and supporters of Fethullah Gulen, the cleric blamed by Turkey’s government for a coup attempt in 2016.
The Turkish court sentenced Brunson to three years and 1-1/2 months in prison on terrorism charges, but said he would not serve any further jail time and freed him.
Brunson, who has lived in Turkey for more than 20 years, denied the accusations and Washington had demanded his immediate release.
U.S. Ambassador Richard Grenell greeted Brunson and his wife during a refueling stop in Germany, the envoy said on social network Twitter.
“He’s almost home thanks to @realDonaldTrump,” Grenell wrote. “When I presented him with the US flag, he immediately kissed it.”
President Donald Trump said Brunson would probably visit the White House Oval Office on Saturday.
Asked if U.S. sanctions imposed on Turkey to try to win Brunson’s release might be lifted, Trump said no agreement was made for the pastor’s freedom.
“There was no deal made at all. There was no deal. But we’re very happy to have him and have him in good shape.” Trump told reporters in Cincinnati.
The diplomatic fight over Brunson had accelerated a recent sell-off in Turkey’s currency, worsening its financial crisis.
‘GREAT CHRISTIAN’
Dressed in a black suit, white shirt and red tie, Brunson wept as the court decision was announced, witnesses said. Before the judge’s ruling, he had told the court: “I am an innocent man. I love Jesus. I love Turkey.”
U.S. pastor Andrew Brunson and his wife Norrine arrive at the airport in Izmir, Turkey October 12, 2018. REUTERS/Umit Bektas
Witnesses told the court in the western town of Aliaga that testimony against the pastor attributed to them was inaccurate.
Brunson’s mother told Reuters she and his father were elated at the news. “We are overjoyed that God has answered the prayers of so many people around the world,” she said by telephone from her home in Black Mountain, North Carolina.
Trump has used the Brunson case to try to score points with evangelical Christians, a large part of his political base, ahead of the Nov. 6 congressional elections, which will determine whether Republicans keep control of Congress.
He has called Brunson, a native of North Carolina, a “great Christian”, and Vice President Mike Pence, the White House’s top emissary to evangelicals, had urged Americans to pray for Brunson.
“We thank God for answered prayers and commend the efforts of @SecPompeo & @StateDept in supporting Pastor Brunson and his family during this difficult time,” Pence said on Twitter. “@SecondLady and I look forward to welcoming Pastor Brunson and his courageous wife Norine back to the USA!”
U.S. broadcaster NBC said on Thursday that Washington had done a secret deal with Ankara to secure Brunson’s release.
Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, told Reuters that active engagement by Trump and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo contributed to Brunson’s release.
“A lot of factors played into this,” Tillis said, adding the United States was trying to “get back to a point of a positive relationship” with Turkey.
NATO ALLIES
Relations between the two NATO allies have been under serious strain over U.S. support for Kurdish fighters in northern Syria, Turkey’s plans to buy a Russian missile defense system, and the U.S. jailing of an executive at a Turkish state bank in an Iran sanctions-busting case.
The release of Brunson could help ease tensions, but political analysts say many unresolved problems remain.
“This is a necessary but far from sufficient step to reverse what has been a deepening rift between the United States and Turkey, two NATO allies,” said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Attention may now turn to the fate of a Turkish-U.S. national and former NASA scientist in jail in Turkey on terrorism charges, as well as three local employees of the U.S. consulate who have also been detained.
Slideshow (15 Images)
Washington wants all of them released.
“We hope that the Turkish government will quickly release our other detained U.S. citizens and @StateDept locally employed staff,” Pompeo said on Twitter.
Ankara has demanded that the United States extradite Gulen to Turkey. The cleric, who was lived in self-imposed exile in the United States since 1999, denies any role in the attempted coup. | An American pastor detained for two years in Turkey on charges of espionage and aiding terrorist groups is heading home. A Turkish court on Friday allowed the release of evangelical pastor Andrew Brunson, who lived for more than 20 years in Turkey before he was jailed in the 2016 crackdown that followed a failed coup, accused of links to alleged orchestrator Fethullah Gulen and Kurdish militants. Facing up to 35 years in prison, the North Carolina native was handed a three-year sentence on Friday but ordered released considering his time served, reports Reuters. Under house arrest since July, Brunson had declared his innocence at Friday’s hearing and cried as the judgment was read. It came a day after NBC News reported that a secret deal between Washington and Ankara would secure Brunson's release around the time of the hearing. The deal included lifting some sanctions imposed and threatened by President Trump, per the Washington Post. However, the State Department later said it was unaware of such a deal. "PASTOR BRUNSON JUST RELEASED. WILL BE HOME SOON!" reads a tweet from Trump. According to NBC News, the president's lawyer, Jay Sekulow, says Brunson has already boarded a plane to the US. Reuters adds that Brunson's release could help the president score points with evangelicals ahead of next month's midterms. |
CLOSE Bobby Wilson, a candidate for the Arizona Senate from Tucson, surprised the audience at a gun-control forum last week. William Flannigan, azcentral
Bobby Wilson, state Senate candidate in Legislative District 2. (Photo: Courtesy of Bobby Wilson)
A big crowd gathered in a Tucson church last week, ready to hear candidates' plans for gun-control legislation from people vying to become lawmakers at the state Capitol.
All was going more or less as expected. Then, it was Bobby Wilson's turn to speak.
Wilson, one of two Republican candidates who attended the July 9 meeting, took the mic and told a story of how he shot and killed a crazed attacker in an act of self-defense while a teenager.
That attacker, it turned out, was his mother.
He said his life story illustrates the importance of having "a good guy there with a gun" rather than gun-control legislation.
"You can pass all the laws you want to in this world, and when you've got somebody out there that wants to harm somebody, they're going to do it if you don't stop them," Wilson told the crowd.
MORE: Bland: Letter from McCain shows how little changed in 20 years of gun debate
The audience was shocked, as video posted online showed. The crowd, brought together by Moms Demand Action, a nationwide movement against gun violence, burst into boos and heckles.
But there is more to Wilson's story — a lot more.
The tale begins in Hugo, Oklahoma, in 1963, when Wilson was 18 years old. It includes charges of familial murder, a home destroyed by fire, years of amnesia and the start of a winding path that led a young man to a legal career and, now, ambitions to serve in the Arizona Legislature.
The candidate told only part of this story to the Tucson audience.
"(She) was hell-bent on killing me in my sleep one night. At three o'clock in the morning, I woke up to find a rifle in my face — a semiautomatic rifle at that — and the bullets started to fly, and I started diving for cover," Wilson said.
A clip of Wilson's remarks was posted on Twitter by a reporter with the Tucson-based Arizona Daily Star.
Republican Bobby Wilson tells the audience that there is no need for more gun control legislation, but sometimes circumstances require a “good guy with a gun.” pic.twitter.com/u92Bf86xIg — Joe Ferguson (@joeferguson) July 10, 2018
He said he dodged six bullets before reaching for the gun under his bed, which he then used to shoot his mother. He said if not for that gun, he'd be dead.
Both his 49-year-old mother and 17-year-old sister died that night, as Wilson recalled in a 2010 memoir about the event. The book, "Bobby's Trials," was published by Apache Publishing Company, a small Arizona-based publisher operated by Wilson's wife. The publisher has printed four other books by Wilson.
In his memoir, Wilson wrote that his mother suffered debilitating depression and fits of intense rage. He has also called her "deranged" and a "fugitive hiding in the backwoods of S.E. Oklahoma."
Court records and newspaper articles from the time suggest there may be more to the story than Wilson's account.
Those records show he was charged with the murder of his mother and sister, and soon after his arrest he confessed to those charges. He later recanted his confession and claimed he had amnesia about the events of the night in question.
The charges against him ultimately were dismissed by an Oklahoma judge.
What happened the night of the killing?
Bobby Wilson, age 18, one week before the house explosion in 1963. He said he has no family or earlier photos because everything burned in the fire (a coworker had this one of him). (Photo: Courtesy of Bobby Wilson)
In an interview with The Arizona Republic, Wilson recalled more of his memories of the events that night at his childhood home.
Wilson said his mother, Lavonne Wilson, entered his room and repeatedly shot at him but missed.
While aiming for Wilson, he said his mother must have seen a shadow move, so she swung the gun. The rifle butt hit his younger sister, Judy Wilson, in the back of the head and caved it in, he said. Wilson said Judy had entered his room upon hearing the commotion.
An autopsy found she was killed upon impact to the head, according to Wilson.
Wilson's mother continued to shoot at him, Wilson said. A few bullets ricocheted off two gallon-size containers of gasoline in the room and smashed them open.
The Wilsons stored gas in glass jars in Bobby's bedroom because it was the coolest area of the house, which had no air-conditioning, he said. Gas spilled all over the floor, Wilson said.
Wilson said he then grabbed a single-shot rifle from under his bed and fired at his mother.
He said an autopsy later concluded the shot hit her point-blank in the eye. Wilson then ran to the living room to call for help.As he turned on the light switch to reach for the phone, a spark ignited fumes from the spilled gasoline in the other room, he said.
"The house exploded," Wilson recalled.
According to Wilson, he was blasted through the living-room window and into a barbed-wire fence. He said he received a concussion upon impact and was found unconscious and taken to the hospital.
Wilson said his mother and sister were found dead in the house's rubble. A medical examiner declared his mother dead from a combination of the bullet wound and burns, Wilson said.
RELATED: Heard at rally for 2nd Amendment rights: 'We aren’t letting our guns go'
Wilson said he was arrested by the county sheriff while in the hospital and was thrown in jail. With his two family members dead and he as the sole survivor — and unable at the time to recall what happened — Wilson said the sheriff blamed him and imprisoned him right away.
He said he spent seven or eight months in jail until his employer bailed him out. Wilson said he faced two trials, both of which he said were "inconclusive."
He said that at a third trial in 1973, all charges against him were dropped. He said the district attorney announced the state never had a solid case against him and was wrong all along.
According to Wilson, the district attorney and sheriff apologized for Wilson's ordeals and the judge dismissed all charges against him.
Newspaper, court accounts of killings are much different
Details reported at the time in a local newspaper, in addition to court records from Wilson's case, both differ significantly in numerous regards from Wilson's account to The Republic.
The Choctaw County Weekly, a publication that compiled articles from multiple area papers, published several stories about the events in the days following the deaths and fire.
The front page of Choctaw County Weekly on June 20, 1963, the day after Bobby Wilson's mother and sister were found dead in their burned home in Hugo, Oklahoma. (Photo: Courtesy of Hugo Publishing Company)
The Choctow County District Court Clerk's Office also provided records about Wilson's case.
Court records list Wilson's last name as Wiste. Wilson said that was because his mother — who was a widow — had the family living under an assumed last name. He said he later changed his last name to Wilson.
According to the June 20, 1963, edition of the Choctaw County Weekly, after the fire at the house was extinguished, a water truck sprayed the site of the burned house to allow funeral workers to remove the remains.
According to the newspaper, the charred bodies of Lavonne and Judy Wilson were found lying together in bed "in a 'perfectly relaxed' position, indicating they died in their sleep from suffocation."
The paper reported that neighbors heard the explosion and rushed to the house to find young Wilson lying in the grass, gasping for breath. The paper said he was suffering from smoke inhalation and had minor cuts and burns.
RELATED: What stands between kids and shooters is sometimes just a locked door
Initially, authorities anticipated no foul play was involved, but they proceeded with an investigation.
One week later, the paper reported that Wilson had confessed to murdering his mother and sister.
The paper said Wilson led officers to where he buried the rifle used to kill them.
After prompting by his boss at the meat market, "Bobby reflected a moment, and then slowly added that last jigsaw piece with this account — a story already put together by officers, needing only his stamp of authenticity," the Weekly wrote.
Wilson admitted to shooting his mother, according to the paper. Then, when his sister ran at him, he crushed her skull with his rifle butt. He placed the bodies on the bed, poured gas around the house and lit a match, the paper reported.
"It was Sheriff Thornton's tenacious insistence that the bodies be sent to the state crime bureau for examination that spoiled what otherwise could easily have been the perfect crime," the Weekly reported. "Reports showed death came prior to the fire and from causes that later proved completely accurate."
Copy of the Choctaw County Weekly newspaper's article on June 27, 1963, detailing Bobby Wilson's confession of murder. (Photo: Courtesy of Hugo Publishing Company)
Wilson was tried on homicide charges.
Court records show that three years after he was charged with the murders, Wilson filed with the court for "mental incapacity to make a rational defense."
He claimed he suffered from amnesia during the time of the allegations, and with no clear memory of the night's events, was unable to plan his defense with attorneys or tell his side of the story.
The court ordered a jury to decide whether evidence supported Wilson's claims of memory loss.
Four days later, the jury returned its verdict: Wilson indeed suffered from amnesia, they said. The judge ruled Wilson was thus "not capable of proceeding to trial and making a rational defense."
The case was "suspended" until Wilson could regain enough memory to defend himself, the judge said.
Seven years later, in late 1973, Wilson moved to dismiss entirely the charges against him.
According to court filings, his attorney argued that because the district attorney, state and district court had taken no action in seven years, he had been "deprived of his right to speedy trial." He added that his witnesses were no longer available because they had died. He motioned for all charges to be dismissed.
The court dismissed his case.
Wilson then moved to Texas for college and law school. After graduating, he practiced law in Texas for 20 years.
Last year, Wilson told the Green Valley News, a southern Arizona publication, that he regained all of his memory of the events in a momentous day as a lawyer.
He was investigating the case of one of his first clients, "who also had been falsely accused of murder," Wilson told the Green Valley News.
CLOSE Alan Korwin, a gun law expert and author of "Arizona Gun Owner's Guide," discusses Arizona's gun laws. Thomas Hawthorne/azcentral
He said he was looking for clues in the woman's vehicle, when he smelled the combination of gasoline and blood.
"The horrible, nauseating smells off the car plummeted me back like a lightning bolt to that fateful night in my childhood, and all the memories flooded in," Wilson told the paper. "It was an incredibly disturbing experience, but it also brought relief: Now I had the truth."
Wilson told the Green Valley News that after his amnesia subsided, he could fully recount the events of that night in 1963. He proceeded to pen a book and tell his version of the story.
Wilson moved to Arizona in 1995 to teach law as a college professor.
According to his candidate website, he also owned a private-investigation agency in Arizona for 10 years.
The Maricopa County Community College District hired Wilson in 1995 as an adjunct faculty member in the criminal-justice department, where he remains active.
He teaches paralegals at Rio Salado College. He said he is a three-time recipient of a teaching award for adjunct faculty at the college.
More on gun laws, and an Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy
In the interview with The Republic, Wilson stood by his remarks about gun-control legislation and doubled-down on his belief that "good" armed people are "the only way" to stop gun violence.
"When I was in high school, all of the high-school boys had rifles and shotguns in their cars every day when they came to school, and nobody shot anybody at school, and nobody even thought about it," Wilson said.
"In today's world, we've got people walking into the public schools and public events and killing innocent people, and yes, the only way you can stop that is somebody better have a firearm to put a stop to it."
Wilson reiterated his belief that legislation will make no difference.
MORE: Good guy with gun in Giffords shooting touts training if teachers are armed
"I don't think you can control people's behavior by passing laws," he said. "They keep looking for a magic-bullet law that they can pass where it’s gonna put an end to the killings and the gun violence, and they're not gonna find the magic bullet. There is no magic bullet."
In another take on American government, Wilson penned a 2016 book explaining his theory that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was part of a government sting operation and that "a massive cover-up had occurred and possibly an innocent man executed."
Man who helped save Gabby Giffords responds
State Rep. Daniel Hernandez, D-Tucson, was seated next to Wilson at the forum — what Hernandez called "a bizarre meeting" — as both are running to represent Legislative District 2 at the Capitol.
Daniel Hernandez (Photo: Courtesy of Daniel Hernandez)
Hernandez was an intern for former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in 2011 when she was shot in the head and almost died at a mass shooting outside a Tucson-area supermarket.
He is credited with saving her life. He applied pressure to her forehead wound and made sure she didn't choke on blood.
Giffords was in the audience at the forum.
Hernandez said he was "so confused" upon hearing Wilson's comments, and said he checked with Wilson after the event to make sure he heard correctly.
"I thought I had misheard him," Hernandez said. "We were just like 'Wait, what did he just say?!'
RELATED: FBI releases new photos, video of 2011 Giffords shooting
"Even though I was sitting right next to him, it just took me aback that at this forum put on by Moms Demand Action, when we were talking about common-sense gun-violence prevention, he was talking about how he had to kill his mother in what I take is self-defense," Hernandez said.
After his experience at the Jan. 8, 2011, shooting, Hernandez became an outspoken advocate for gun-violence prevention at the state and federal levels.
"The idea that we can't actually do anything as a policymaker is just something that baffles me to this day," Hernandez said.
Candidate: Giffords 'created a target'
Wilson said he was aware of Hernandez's story and knew that he "supposedly" helped Giffords in the moments immediately after the shooting. Wilson said he expected to be "booed and heckled" at the event given its focus on gun-control measures.
"I knew it was gonna be a hostile audience when I went," Wilson said. "I just thought, 'I'm gonna go in and tell them how I think, and they can throw rocks or bananas or whatever, I don't care.' "
Wilson said Giffords should have had security with her at the 2011 supermarket meet and greet.
"She basically created a target," he said. "Anytime you have a group of celebrities or a group of people like at the forum last night, you better have security there. It's the same with a public school."
So excited to see such great turn out at the @MomsDemand candidate forum tonight in Tucson. All the D candidates in CD2, and candidates from both Parties in LD2, 3, 9 and 10. pic.twitter.com/oGDjNceard — Representative Daniel Hernandez Jr (@djblp) July 10, 2018
Wilson mentioned that an armed officer was present in the back of the church at Monday's forum, which he said made the boos after his comments seem "pretty hypocritical" and "ironic" to him.
But Hernandez said that even if armed people are present in a violent incident, they still may not act, be it for lack of training or for not wanting to add to the "confusion" in a mass-shooting event.
He added that the officer present on Monday was a trained professional.
"(Wilson's) notion of all you need is a good guy with a gun is I think just bonkers," Hernandez said. "It was utter shock at hearing a candidate talk about killing his own mother, and then also just being really surprised that he would come to this forum where gun-violence prevention was really the main topic."
District 2 is a Democratic stronghold encompassing parts of Pima County and Santa Cruz County, south of Tucson. All three Democratic incumbents are running for re-election this fall.
READ MORE:
Want more news like this? Click here to subscribe to azcentral.com. Go to connect.azcentral.com for a staff list, for more information about the newsroom and for details about upcoming events.
Read or Share this story: https://azc.cc/2urNTC2 ||||| PHOENIX (AP) — A Republican Arizona state Senate candidate has shocked gun control advocates by sharing details about shooting and killing his mother in apparent self-defense more than 50 years ago.
Bobby Wilson, who is running to represent a southern Arizona district, told The Associated Press that he's not trying to hide anything. He says his mother was "insane" and shot at him with a rifle when he was in bed in their Oklahoma farmhouse one night in 1963. He then shot and killed her — Wilson's sister also died that night, and the house caught on fire.
"I'm lucky to be alive, twice over," Wilson said.
Wilson wrote about these events in his 2010 book "Bobby's Trials" and also mentions them on his website biography. But they caught public interest when he appeared at a Moms Demand Action forum in Tucson earlier this month. Wilson told the crowd he was "living proof" that the only one who can stop someone trying to harm somebody is a "good guy with a gun."
He didn't say at that event that the person he shot was his mother.
Rep. Daniel Hernandez, a Democrat who represents the same district Wilson is running in, was at the forum. He said Gabby Giffords, the former congresswoman who was shot in Tucson in 2011, and other gun violence survivors were in the audience. Many were shocked, he said.
Hernandez — who was at the scene when Giffords was shot — said Wilson also brought up the Giffords shooting, saying that she should've had security.
"I've never ever heard someone be so aggressive in that view, and also to drag Gabby into it, I thought, was so distasteful and so disgusting," he said.
Jacob Martinez, an organizer with March for Our Lives AZ, said he thinks Wilson's experiences as reported show the necessity of providing emotional help to those who need it — and ensuring that guns in homes are locked up.
"He should know better than anybody that something needs to be done, and the fact that he can't acknowledge that speaks volumes," Martinez said.
Wilson is running for a seat currently held by Democrat Sen. Andrea Dalessandro. He's in a primary running against Republican Shelley Kais, who says there are other issues that matter to voters.
"We need someone who can secure a position and a voice for the people of southern Arizona and we don't need controversy like this swirling around them," Kais said.
Wilson is undeterred by criticism. The night after the forum, Wilson posted on Facebook he was the only Republican candidate with the "guts" to appear. "I was greeted with boos and catcalls," he wrote. "Loved it!"
The Arizona Republic reported Monday that Wilson was imprisoned after the deaths were discovered. After two trials, the court eventually dismissed his case in the early 1970s. The Republic also reported that newspaper accounts at the time of the shooting gave conflicting details about how Wilson's sister died and other elements of that night.
Wilson said he never confessed to anything at the time because he had amnesia and didn't remember what happened for many years.
After working as an attorney, Wilson moved to Arizona in the mid-1990s. He worked as a private investigator and teaches in the paralegal program at Rio Salado College.
Wilson says he's a licensed gun owner. But he says he hasn't had to act in self-defense since.
"That's the only time I've ever been in that situation, and I hope it's the last time," he said. | A Republican Arizona state Senate candidate has shocked gun control advocates by sharing details about shooting and killing his mother in apparent self-defense more than 50 years ago. Bobby Wilson, who is running to represent a southern Arizona district, tells the AP that he's not trying to hide anything. He says his mother was "insane" and shot at him with a rifle when he was in bed in their Oklahoma farmhouse one night in 1963. He then shot and killed her. Wilson's sister also died that night, and the house caught on fire. "I'm lucky to be alive, twice over," says Wilson, who wrote about these events in his 2010 book, Bobby's Trials, and also mentions them in his website biography. At a Moms Demand Action forum in Tucson earlier this month. Wilson told the crowd he was "living proof" that the only one who can stop someone trying to harm somebody is a "good guy with a gun." Wilson is running for a seat currently held by Democratic Sen. Andrea Dalessandro. He's in a primary running against Republican Shelley Kais. The Arizona Republic reported Monday that Wilson was imprisoned after the deaths were discovered. After two trials, the court eventually dismissed his case in the early 1970s. Newspaper accounts at the time of the shooting gave conflicting details about how Wilson's sister died and other elements of that night. Wilson says he never confessed to anything at the time because he had amnesia and didn't remember what happened for many years. |
IRS’s financial management has long been problematic. In fiscal year 2001, it continued to be plagued by many of the serious internal control and financial management issues that we have reported each year since we began auditing IRS’s financial statements in fiscal year 1992. Despite these issues, IRS was, for the second consecutive year, able to produce financial statements covering its tax custodial and administrative activities in fiscal years 2001 and 2000, that were fairly stated in all material respects. However, this was achieved only through extensive reliance on costly, time-consuming processes; statistical projections; external contractors; substantial adjustments; and monumental human efforts that extended nearly four months after the September 30, 2001, fiscal year-end. These costly efforts would not have been necessary if IRS’s systems and controls operated effectively. However, IRS still does not have a financial management system capable of producing the reliable and timely information its managers need to make day-to-day decisions on an ongoing basis, which is a goal of the CFO Act. Additionally, IRS’s current approach to developing its financial statements does not address the underlying financial management and operational issues that adversely affect IRS’s ability to effectively fulfill its responsibilities as the nation’s tax collector. Strong commitment and hard work by both IRS’s senior leadership and staff continued to be the key to its ability to overcome its fundamental systems and internal control deficiencies and achieve its goal of receiving an unqualified audit opinion on its fiscal years 2001 and 2000 financial statements. However, IRS found it extremely difficult to prepare its financial records for audit examination and issue its financial statements within the reporting timeline required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for fiscal year 2001. OMB has announced the executive branch’s intention to significantly accelerate this timeline for future years and by fiscal year 2004, IRS will be required to issue its financial statements by November 15, or 6 weeks after fiscal year end. Also, the Department of the Treasury has established a goal of completing its fiscal year 2002 audit, including those of its component entities, and issuing its department wide accountability report by November 15, 2002. Without significant and systemic changes in how IRS processes transactions, maintains its records, and reports its financial results to accompany its extensive compensating processes, IRS’s ability to meet this accelerated reporting deadline while sustaining an unqualified opinion on its financial statements is questionable. We would now like to summarize the major financial management challenges confronting IRS. IRS did not have internal controls over its financial reporting process adequate to enable it to timely, routinely, and reliably generate and report the information needed to prepare financial statements and manage operations on an ongoing basis. Information produced by IRS’s financial management systems is neither current nor accurate, and must be supplemented by extensive, costly, time consuming manual procedures that take months to complete and typically result in billions of dollars in adjustments. The resulting financial statement balances are not available until months later and are only reliable at a single point in time. During fiscal year 2001, IRS continued to lack (1) an adequate general ledger system for financial reporting and management purposes, (2) adequate internal controls over material balances maintained in its general ledger system and recording of financial transactions, (3) a cost accounting system capable of providing timely and reliable cost information related to IRS’s activities and programs to assist management in making resource allocation decisions, and (4) the ability to separately report several of the federal government’s largest types of revenue collections. IRS’s pervasive financial reporting weaknesses prevented it from preparing timely and reliable financial statements or other financial information that Congress and senior IRS management could rely on to oversee and assist in managing operations during fiscal year 2001. Consequently, IRS was compelled to make certain business decisions affecting the disposition of tens of billions of dollars without current and reliable underlying financial information. For example, in each of the following cases involving taxpayer compliance issues, IRS indicated that resource limitations affected its ability to perform necessary follow-up. From 1996 to 1999, IRS only followed-up on 21 percent of the over 53 million underreported individual income tax cases it identified, which accounted for about 41 percent of the over $65 billion in underreported taxes IRS estimated on these cases; and As of September 30, 2001, IRS had either not started collection action or had stopped collection action in progress on unpaid tax assessment cases with outstanding balances totaling about $12 billion. In deciding the amount of resources to devote to follow-up on these cases, IRS should consider factors such as the effects on fairness to taxpayers and efforts to deter filing fraud. The relative costs and benefits involved in following up on questionable cases should also be an integral part of such decisions. However, in each of these circumstances, IRS could not readily determine or justify whether it would be cost-beneficial to devote additional resources for such follow-up because it was not able to readily determine (1) the cost of following up on cases or (2) how much it collected on those cases for which it did follow-up. Without this information, IRS cannot perform cost-benefit analysis to assist it in determining or justifying whether the amount of resources it has devoted to each of these programs is appropriate relative to costs and potential benefits involved. Consequently, IRS is hindered in its ability to justify its resource utilization decisions or provide justification for resource increases, which could result in potentially billions of dollars of revenue going uncollected, lead to further erosion in taxpayers’ confidence in the equity of the tax system, and adversely affect future compliance. Ongoing serious internal control deficiencies continued to render IRS unable to properly manage unpaid assessments and has led to increased taxpayer burden. IRS still lacks a subsidiary ledger that tracks and accumulates unpaid tax assessments on an ongoing basis. As a consequence, it must rely on specialized computer programs to extract unpaid tax assessment information from its master files—its only detailed databases of taxpayer account information—and then subject this information to statistical sampling procedures in order to prepare its financial statements. This process takes months to complete and typically requires tens of billions of dollars in adjustments to correct misclassifications and eliminate duplications in order to produce a reliable balance at a single point in time. Consequently, this information is not useful for ongoing management decisions. In addition, the lack of a subsidiary ledger renders IRS unable to timely develop reliable financial and management reports and promptly identify and focus collection efforts on accounts most likely to prove collectible. IRS’s management of unpaid assessments also continued to be hindered by significant errors and delays in recording taxpayer information and payments. As in prior years, the most prevalent errors we found involved IRS’s failure to record payments to all related taxpayers associated with unpaid payroll taxes. IRS’s current systems cannot automatically link each of the multiple assessments made for the one tax liability. Consequently, if the business or an officer pays some or all of the outstanding taxes, IRS’s systems are unable to automatically reflect the payment as a reduction in the related account or accounts. IRS also continued to experience problems in promptly releasing liens filed against the property of taxpayers who at one time owed the federal government for taxes but who had subsequently paid or otherwise satisfied these taxes. In one case we identified, IRS did not formally release a lien against a taxpayer’s property until 302 days after the tax liability had been fully paid. Based on the results of our work, we estimated that for over 8 percent of unpaid tax assessment cases where IRS had filed a tax lien that was resolved in fiscal year 2001, IRS did not release the lien within the 30 day period required under section 6325 of the Internal Revenue Code. The serious internal control issues IRS continues to experience with its unpaid assessments can lead, and have led, both to undue taxpayer burden and lost revenue to the government. These conditions can also further erode the confidence of the nation’s taxpayers in the integrity and fairness of the tax collection process. During fiscal year 2001, we found that IRS’s controls were not fully effective in maximizing the government’s ability to collect what is owed and in minimizing the risk of payment of improper refunds. Inherent in the voluntary nature of the nation’s tax collection system is the concept that IRS must, to a large degree, rely on taxpayers to report their tax liabilities. When taxpayers either intentionally or unintentionally fail to report to IRS the full amount of taxes they owe the federal government, IRS’s ability to independently identify the taxpayers and determine the amount they owe is inherently limited. IRS does not always follow up on potential unpaid taxes it is aware of, and does not always pursue collection of those taxes it determines are owed. In addition, IRS often does not initiate follow-up of those unpaid taxes it does pursue until months after the related tax return has been filed and any related refund has been paid. This delay significantly affects IRS’s prospects of collecting amounts due on these cases. The options available to IRS in its efforts to identify and pursue the correct amount of taxes owed and to ensure that only valid refunds are disbursed are currently limited. Additionally, while it processes hundreds of millions of tax returns each filing season, IRS must issue refunds within statutory time constraints or be subject to interest charges. Nonetheless, IRS does have some preventive controls that, if effectively implemented, could help to reduce the risks associated with not identifying underreported taxes owed or issuing improper refunds. For example, IRS’s Examination Branch is responsible for performing examinations on tax returns with potentially invalid EITC claims to determine the validity of the claim. When performed before refunds are disbursed, these examinations are an important control to prevent disbursement of improper refunds. However, these examinations are often performed after any related refunds are disbursed. Consequently, they are not an effective preventive control overall. According to IRS’s report on its analysis of EITC compliance rates on tax year 1999 returns filed in 2000, (1) about one-half of the 18.8 million returns on which taxpayers claimed the EITC involved overclaims and (2) of the estimated $31.3 billion in EITC claims made by taxpayers who filed returns in 2000, between $8.5 billion and $9.9 billion was invalid. Based on an average refund rate of about 84 percent of all EITC claims in tax year 1999, we estimate that at least $7 billion in improper refunds were disbursed on these invalid claims. IRS’s decisions concerning its ability to follow-up on unpaid taxes and to forgo follow-up examinations on invalid EITC claims and potentially underreported taxes were based in part on perceived resource constraints. However, as discussed previously, IRS’s financial management systems do not currently provide the timely, reliable information management needs to perform cost-benefit analyses to assist in determining the appropriate level of resources to devote to these compliance programs. As a result of these problems, billions of dollars of underreported taxes could remain uncollected and improper refunds could be disbursed. This, in turn, could further erode taxpayer confidence in the equity of the tax system and reduce compliance with the tax laws. Despite continued improvement during fiscal year 2001, IRS’s internal controls over cash, checks, and related taxpayer data did not adequately protect the federal government and taxpayers from vulnerability to loss from theft and inappropriate disclosure of proprietary taxpayer information. IRS has significantly reduced the average amount of time it takes to obtain the results of employee applicant fingerprint checks; further, it now requires the use of two bonded or insured couriers to transport tax receipts to depository institutions, and has limited courier access within service center premises. However, significant but readily correctable weaknesses continued to exist. For example, at IRS locations we visited as part of our fiscal year 2001 financial audit, checks were left in open, unlocked containers, and personal belongings of IRS’s employees were allowed into restricted areas where taxpayer receipts were being processed. We also found that IRS had not ensured that the couriers it entrusted with transporting taxpayer receipts and data met the necessary insurance coverage requirements and had completed their fingerprint checks before beginning work. These weaknesses increase the risk that taxpayer data could be inappropriately disclosed or receipts stolen. In April 2000, IRS issued a policy prohibiting new employees from working at IRS facilities until IRS had received and reviewed the results of their fingerprint checks. This was in direct response to a security issue we had reported for several years concerning new employees being allowed to handle tax receipts and sensitive taxpayer data before IRS received and evaluated the results of their fingerprint checks. IRS made significant progress on this issue during fiscal year 2001. However, we continued to identify instances where IRS’s policy was not being followed. A related vulnerability is that this IRS policy does not apply to individuals employed at ten commercial banks that process tax receipts for the agency. The Department of the Treasury’s Financial Management Service contracts with these banks to process manual tax receipts, but the banks were not prohibited from hiring new employees before the results of their fingerprint checks were received and reviewed. Consequently, at the two banks we visited during our fiscal year 2001 audit, fingerprint checks were not always required or performed for either temporary or permanent employees. These weaknesses subject IRS to unnecessary risk of theft or loss of tax receipts, and expose taxpayers to increased risk of losses from financial crimes committed by individuals who inappropriately gain access to confidential information entrusted to IRS. During fiscal year 2001, IRS continued efforts to correct longstanding weaknesses in accountability over its administrative accounts and budgetary resources, and is working aggressively to address issues we have raised regarding controls over its property and equipment and budgetary activity. However, it continued to experience significant internal control deficiencies in these areas during fiscal year 2001. Significant deficiencies in accountability for property and equipment have been reported by IRS every year since 1983. IRS lacks an integrated property management system to appropriately record, track, and account for property and equipment additions, disposals, and existing inventory on an ongoing basis. While IRS has made progress in improving the timeliness and accuracy of recording such activity in its inventory records, we continued to find significant errors in these records. For example, IRS was unable to locate 25 of 210 items we selected from its inventory records; these items included computers, monitors, and printers. In addition, because of the lack of an integrated property management system that includes reliable cost information on each item, IRS continued to need the assistance of a contractor to develop and implement a process to enable it to report reliable property and equipment-related balances in its financial statements. These weaknesses seriously impair IRS’s ability to ensure that property and equipment are properly safeguarded and utilized only in accordance with laws, regulations, and management policy, and preclude IRS from having reliable information on its balance of these assets throughout the fiscal year. With respect to controls over its budgetary activity, IRS has developed additional compensating procedures to address weaknesses we previously reported. For example, IRS developed procedures to identify and eliminate from the applicable general ledger accounts transactions that were incorrectly recorded as adjustments to prior years’ obligations. However, IRS only employed these procedures as a one-time corrective action at fiscal year-end, rather than as a routine operating procedure throughout the fiscal year. In addition, we continued to identify instances in which IRS did not timely record obligations or expenditures. As a result, IRS’s internal controls did not ensure that its budgetary resources were routinely accounted for, reported, and controlled. Without adequate budgetary controls, IRS cannot ensure the reliability of key budgetary information it needs on an ongoing basis to manage its operations and ensure that its obligations do not exceed budgetary authority. IRS acknowledges the issues raised in our financial audits, and the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Operations continue to pledge their commitment to addressing these long-standing issues. We have assisted IRS in formulating corrective actions to address its serious internal control and financial management issues by providing recommendations over the years, and we will continue to work with the agency on these matters. The challenge for IRS will be to build on the goals reached in fiscal year 2001: to not only improve its compensating processes but, more importantly, to develop and implement the fundamental long-term solutions that are needed to address the management challenges we have identified. Some of these solutions can be addressed in the near term through the continued efforts and commitment of senior IRS managers and staff. Others, such as those involving modernizing IRS’s financial and operational systems, will take years to fully achieve. Until IRS’s systems and processes are overhauled and internal controls strengthened, heroic efforts will have to be sustained for IRS to continue to produce reliable financial statements. Additionally, without significant and systemic changes in how IRS processes transactions, maintains its records, and reports its financial results, IRS’s ability to meet OMB’s accelerated reporting deadline or to achieve Treasury’s even more ambitious reporting goals for fiscal year 2002, while sustaining an unqualified opinion on its financial statements is questionable. IRS has continued to make progress in revamping its performance management system-a system designed to measure, assess, and improve organizational and employee performance. It has begun to implement a new employee evaluation system; develop a measure of voluntary tax reporting compliance; and use its strategic planning, budgeting, and performance management process to assess the allocation of resources in its fiscal year 2003 budget and to oversee use of resources during fiscal year 2002. While this progress is notable, our work over the past year has shown that IRS could do a better job of designing and implementing performance measures and evaluation practices that support its on-going business operations, modernization efforts, and budget requests. Further, IRS could make additional progress in linking its budget request to intended results so that Congress can make more informed budget decisions and better assess IRS’s use of resources. The key accomplishments over the year include the following: In October 2001, IRS rolled out its new employee evaluation system for front-line employees. This system, like that implemented earlier for executives and managers, was developed to structurally align performance expectations for employees with IRS’s three strategic goals to encourage behaviors and actions that support and advance those goals. IRS recognizes that it may take a while before the new front-line employee evaluation system achieves the intended results. For example, front-line enforcement employees are asked to balance expectations that may appear to conflict, such as providing quality customer service while still enforcing the tax laws. These expectations mean enforcement employees should use appropriate enforcement actions while at the same time listening to and considering the taxpayer’s point of view. Employees may need time to better understand what the new performance expectations mean in terms of their daily work and which behaviors they should change in order to put IRS’s new operational environment into practice. IRS has made progress in developing a way to measure the voluntary compliance of individual taxpayers without placing an undue burden on them. Each year billions of dollars in taxes are not voluntarily reported and paid. To understand the overall extent of noncompliance, IRS plans to begin conducting its study of tax reporting compliance later this fall. The study should provide IRS with data to update the criteria it uses to select tax returns for audit and thereby reduce the number of compliant taxpayers selected. Also, the study is intended to provide detailed information about compliance, such as why taxpayers fail to comply with a specific tax law provision. Having such information should enable IRS to make operational changes such as modifying tax forms and instructions or to recommend tax law changes that could improve compliance. As we have reported, the importance of this study cannot be understated because the most current data IRS has on compliance levels is over 10 years old.Furthermore, measures of voluntary compliance are vital to understanding the ultimate impact of IRS’s taxpayer service and compliance programs. Their absence from IRS’s array of organizational performance measures compromises the effectiveness of the performance management system. In part through use of its strategic planning, budgeting, and performance management process, IRS identified various expected efficiency improvements, technological enhancements, labor-saving initiatives, and workload decreases that it projects will enable it to redirect $157.5 million in its base fiscal year 2003 budget to higher priority areas. Examples include (1) saving over $67 million from re-engineering and quality improvement efforts, such as consolidating form printing and distribution operations and updating an antiquated workload selection system to reduce or eliminate the substantial number of tax returns that are ordered but never audited, and (2) reducing the resources used for the innocent spouse program by $13.8 million due to an expected decrease in caseload. While these actions are commendable, the likelihood that the savings from these improvements will be realized is unclear because IRS did not provide details on how specific savings were computed. Also, any shortfall in estimated labor and nonlabor savings will only be exacerbated if IRS has to absorb unanticipated cost increases such as those that could occur if civilian pay increases for fiscal year 2003 are higher than currently proposed. A key part of any performance management system is performance evaluation, which is the collection of data on performance and the analysis of those data to determine the factors that explain performance. Over the past year we reported on certain aspects of the 2001 filing season where IRS lacked comparable measures or had insufficient data to assess performance. We also reported on various compliance and taxpayer service programs where IRS managers did not consistently evaluate the performance of their program to make decisions about how to improve performance. Additionally, we recently reported on how IRS’s congressional justification for its fiscal year 2003 budget was not always well linked to its performance goals. Our assessment of the tax year 2001 filing season found that IRS lacked or had insufficient performance measures and data to evaluate refund processing, face-to face taxpayer assistance, returns processing initiatives, and electronic filing impediments. In past years, our assessment of IRS’s performance in processing paper tax returns and refunds included a comparison of various performance measures against IRS’s goals and prior year performance. We were unable to make such a comparison for measures for 2001 because in some instances IRS revised measures that it had been using to assess processing performance. For example, IRS revised the start date for determining the way it measures the timeliness of issuing refund checks. Before 2001, IRS used the date the taxpayer signed the return as the start date for computing refund timeliness and had set a goal of processing a certain percentage of those refunds within 40 days of that date. For the 2001 filing season IRS used the IRS-received date as the start date for computing timeliness because it had control over its own operations but not over when taxpayers signed their returns. While we support IRS’s efforts to develop and refine its performance measures to help assure that they are valid and balanced, frequent or extensive changes deprive the various programs of stability and comparability, thus hampering the ability to set or achieve goals. Measures of timeliness and quality, which IRS defines as the accuracy of the answers to tax law questions, are important for gauging how well IRS responds to taxpayers’ inquiries. IRS did a good job of measuring the daily average wait time of taxpayers who visited a Taxpayer Assistance Center for face-to-face assistance during the 2001 filing season. However, unlike the 2000-filing season when IRS employees posed as taxpayers to obtain data to measure tax law accuracy, IRS did not measure the quality of the assistance in 2001 because of staffing and training challenges associated with IRS’s reorganization. Instead the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reviewers, posing as taxpayers, asked tax law questions of IRS representatives. This year IRS is using a contractor’s employees to pose as taxpayers in order get a measure of tax law accuracy. In each of the three filing seasons a different measurement methodology was used to measure tax law accuracy and each came up with a different result. The accuracy rate reported by IRS in 2000 was 24 percent, by TIGTA in 2001 was 51 percent, and by IRS contract employees in 2002 was 84 percent. Although the results in each of the 3 years were based on visits to the assistance centers by persons posing as taxpayers, there were differences in such things as the questions the persons asked, the number of weeks covered by the reviews, and the number of sites visited and how they were selected. Given the use of different methodologies, IRS may not know if it realized improvements in quality until the 2003 filing season or later, after it has had time to analyze results using comparable methodologies. IRS implemented several processing initiatives for 2001 that were intended to either improve processing operations or enhance compliance. However, IRS’s evaluations of such initiatives were limited. IRS officials generally drew conclusions about the effectiveness of initiatives based on broad numbers and trends. One such example deals with the evaluation of the checkbox that IRS added to the individual tax form through which taxpayers could authorize IRS to discuss tax return problems with their tax practitioner. The check box could be used instead of submitting a separate authorization form. IRS estimated that the checkbox initiative would save taxpayers about 2 million hours by not having to prepare the separate authorization form. IRS assumed that because about 28 million taxpayers checked the third-party authorization box that this directly equated to a reduction in the number of separate authorization forms it would receive from these taxpayers. However, IRS did not have sufficient data to do a detailed analysis that would support this assumption. While IRS experienced an increase of 13.7 percent in all individual income tax returns filed electronically in 2001 compared to 2000, that rate of increase was below IRS’s goal of 20 percent and was the lowest percentage increase since 1996. This declining growth rate reduces the likelihood that IRS will achieve its long-range goal of having 80 percent of individual income tax returns filed electronically by 2007. Although IRS has taken steps to identify impediments to electronic filing, it does not have sufficient information to determine actions it could take to remove some impediments. For example, it lacked information on why about 40 million individual income tax returns were prepared on computer but filed on paper in 2001. We recommended that IRS directly survey tax professionals and taxpayers that file computer-prepared returns on paper to get more specific information on why they are not filing electronically. We have been told that IRS will be undertaking such a survey in the near future. Once IRS has comparable performance measures and data on the several filing season issues discussed, it should be able to better evaluate the issues and take corrective actions. As discussed below, IRS’s efforts to improve the efficiency of its Offer in Compromise program, telephone assistance accessibility and accuracy, and employment tax compliance were hindered by insufficient program evaluation efforts. In our report on IRS’s Offer in Compromise program, which allows taxpayers to settle their tax liability for less than the full amount, we pointed out that IRS lacked program evaluation plans for various initiatives it undertook to try to reduce the offer inventory and processing time. In addition, IRS lacked performance and cost data needed to monitor program performance and had not set goals for offer processing time that were based on taxpayer needs, other benefits, and costs. Such information would give program managers, who are likely to face divergences between actual and projected results, a better understanding of the factors affecting the initiatives’ performance and options for improving their performance. We recommended that IRS develop plans for evaluating offer initiatives, determine which program performance and cost data should be collected, and set goals for offer processing time. Our report on IRS telephone assistance showed that IRS missed some opportunities to analyze data to better understand the factors affecting telephone performance, including the actions it took to improve performance. IRS collected and analyzed a variety of data about the key factors affecting telephone access and accuracy. However, IRS officials sometimes reached conclusions about these key factors without conducting analyses to test their conclusions. For example, most field directors at IRS call sites we reviewed cited higher-than-usual attrition rates among telephone assistors and problems with computer-based research tools that assistors used to answer taxpayers questions as reasons for the limited progress IRS made toward providing world-class telephone service during the 2001 filing season. Yet, in most cases field directors had not conducted any analysis to support these conclusions. IRS officials also missed opportunities to plan evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the actions IRS took to improve access and accuracy. In our report on IRS’s efforts to improve the compliance of small businesses with requirements that they report and pay employment taxes,we found that IRS had not successfully followed through on its plans to evaluate new early intervention programs. IRS had developed three new programs designed to prevent or reduce employment tax delinquencies by speeding up or enhancing the notification to certain groups of businesses. To evaluate the program’s effectiveness and to support informed judgments about whether to adopt new programs, IRS planned to compare compliance rates of test and control groups and to use customer surveys and focus groups. However, IRS efforts to evaluate these programs were adversely affected by, among other things, delays in obtaining reliable data. We recommended that IRS evaluate whether the benefits derived from expansion of the programs justify the programs’ cost. IRS indicated that it would develop and execute a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the employment tax early intervention programs. As IRS moves forward with modernization, the capacity to conduct sound performance evaluations on its current and planned operations will be one building block for success. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, IRS’s guidance, and our prior work all stress the need for analyses of program performance to determine the factors affecting performance and to identify opportunities for improvement. We recognize that some analysis can be costly and thus the costs need to be balanced against the benefits. Considering that IRS devotes considerable resources to many of its programs, the benefits of analysis —identifying ways to more effectively use resources and improve service —could be substantial. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires agencies to establish linkages between resources and results so that the Congress and the American public can gain a better understanding of what is being achieved in relation to what is being spent. As we reported last week, IRS has made progress in linking some of its budget justification to performance goals, but in other instances the budget justification lacked performance goals or contained inconsistencies between the budget request and performance goals. For example IRS’s congressional justification has several good links between the resources being requested and IRS’s performance goals. For example, IRS’s budget includes an increase of 213 FTEs and $14.1 million to improve its telephone level of service, and its performance measures show an expected increase in toll-free telephone level of service from 71.5 percent in fiscal year 2002 to 76.3 percent in fiscal year 2003. In some instances IRS’s congressional justification contained no performance goals against which the Congress can hold IRS accountable. For example, the budget request includes increased resources for systematic noncompliance problems identified by the commissioner of Internal Revenue, such as for abusive corporate tax shelters and failure to pay large accumulations of employment taxes, yet it is unclear from IRS’s budget justification how many resources IRS intends to devote to each of these problems. And, for none of these areas does the budget justification include performance measures and goals that Congress can use to assess IRS’s progress in addressing these major compliance problems. The budget justification seems to contain some inconsistencies between the amount of resources being requested and the expected change in performance or work. For example, the budget request indicates that field examination units will have about the same number of staff years as the year before and will receive a budget increase of less than 3 percent. However, IRS’s performance measures show that the units are expected to examine 33 percent more individual returns and almost 35 percent more business returns. It is not clear from the budget justification how IRS expects to do so much more work with just a small increase in resources. A major purpose of the Government Performance and Results Act and IRS’s strategic planning, budgeting, and performance management system is to support better-informed decisions on allocating scarce resources by focusing on the results likely to be achieved and then supporting subsequent oversight and accountability by establishing transparent measures to assess performance. IRS’s new planning process and the linkages in its budget justification between some of its resource requests and expected results are commendable steps to implement this management approach. Improved linkages in IRS’s budget justifications would better enable Congress to make difficult resource allocations decisions and to hold IRS accountable for achieving results with the resources it is provided. Computer security is an important consideration for any organization that depends on information systems and computer networks to carry out its mission or business. It is especially important for government agencies, where the public’s trust is essential. The dramatic expansion in computer interconnectivity and the rapid increase in the use of the Internet are changing the way in which our government, the nation, and much of the world communicate and conduct business. Without proper safeguards, however, these developments pose enormous risks because it is easier for individuals and groups with malicious intent to intrude into inadequately protected systems and use such access to obtain sensitive information, disrupt operations, commit fraud, or launch attacks against other computer systems and networks. IRS relies extensively on interconnected computer systems to collect and store taxpayer data, process tax returns, calculate interest and penalties, generate refunds, and provide customer service, in so doing collecting and maintaining a significant amount of personal and financial data on every American taxpayer. The confidentiality of this sensitive information is important because without it, taxpayers could be exposed to loss of privacy and financial loss and damages resulting from identity theft and financial crimes. IRS has corrected or mitigated many of the computer security weaknesses cited in our previous reports, and is implementing a computer security program that should, when fully implemented, help it better manage its risks in this area. Actions IRS has taken include strengthening certain controls over its networks and mainframe systems, updating security standards, and implementing an intrusion detection capability. However, we also continued to find weaknesses with general controls designed to protect IRS’s computing resources from unauthorized disclosure, modification, and use. Although the agency has established many policies, procedures, and controls to protect computing resources, they were not always effectively implemented to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the computer-processed data. Weaknesses over logical access to IRS’s computing resources place data at risk of unauthorized access. Further, weaknesses in other information system controls, including physical security, segregation of duties, and service continuity, further increase risk to IRS’s computing environment. Because of these weaknesses, we again reported computer security as a material weaknessin our audit of IRS’s fiscal year 2001 and 2000 financial statements. A basic management objective of any organization is the protection of its information systems and critical data from unauthorized access. Organizations accomplish this objective by establishing logical access controls that are designed to prevent, limit, and detect user access to computing resources. These controls include user accounts and passwords, access rights and permissions, network services and security, and audit and monitoring. Inadequate logical access controls diminish the reliability of computerized data and increase the risk of unauthorized disclosure, modification, or use. IRS’s logical access controls to prevent, limit, and detect access to its computing resources were sometimes implemented ineffectively. IRS did not adequately control user accounts and passwords to ensure that only authorized individuals were granted access to its servers. For example, the agency did not always securely configure password parameters, and users sometimes employed easily guessed passwords on computers, routers, and switches. IRS also did not adequately restrict user rights and allowed excessive access permissions to sensitive directories and files on its computers. Such weaknesses could compromise the integrity of the operating system and the privacy of data that reside there. In addition, IRS did not securely control network services on its computers, routers, and switches in that it enabled unnecessary, outdated, and/or misconfigured network services. For example, intruders could have readily obtained useful system and user information on certain computers that could have facilitated an intrusion attempt. Running insecure network services increase the risks for system compromise, such as unauthorized access to and manipulation of sensitive system data, disruption of services, and denial of service. Moreover, IRS did not effectively audit and monitor system activity on some of its computers. In some cases, its computers did not record key security-related events and security specialists did not routinely or fully examine audit logs for unauthorized activity. As a result, greater risk exists that unauthorized system activity will not be promptly detected. In addition to logical access, controls over other important areas should be in place to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of an organization’s data. These information system controls include policies, procedures, and techniques that physically secure data processing facilities and resources, properly segregate incompatible duties among computer personnel, and effectively ensure the continuation of computer processing service in case of unexpected interruption. Although IRS implemented several physical security controls, certain weaknesses reduced their effectiveness in controlling physical access to its data processing facilities. Likewise, IRS did not segregate incompatible duties associated with certain system functions, thereby providing certain individuals with the opportunity to add fictitious users with elevated system access privileges and perform unauthorized activities without detection. In addition, because IRS has not developed or tested disaster recovery plans for certain systems, it lacks sufficient assurance that it will be able to recover essential information systems and critical business processes should an unexpected interruption occur. In addition, internal controls over key computer applications used by IRS personnel do not provide adequate assurance that access to taxpayer data is granted only to those authorized to have it. Such weaknesses increase the vulnerability of the data processed. Last year, we reported and testified before this subcommittee about the effectiveness of key computer controls designed to ensure the security, privacy, and reliability of IRS’s electronic filing (“e-file”) systems and electronically filed taxpayer data during the 2000 tax-filing season. At that time, IRS had not adequately secured access to its electronic filing systems or to the electronically transmitted tax return data those systems contained. We demonstrated that unauthorized individuals, both internal and external to IRS, could have gained access to IRS’s electronic filing systems and viewed and modified taxpayer data contained in those systems during the 2000 tax-filing season. We were able to gain such access because IRS at that time had not (1) effectively restricted external access to computers supporting the e-file program, (2) securely configured the operating systems of its electronic filing systems, (3) implemented adequate password management and user account practices, (4) sufficiently restricted access to computer files and directories containing tax return and other system data, or (5) used encryption to protect tax return data on e-file systems. We also reported that these weaknesses jeopardized the security of sensitive business, financial, and taxpayer data on other critical IRS systems that were connected to e-file computers through its wide area network. We provided specific technical recommendations to IRS to improve access controls over its electronic filing systems and networks. Today, we are pleased to report that IRS has substantially improved safeguards that control external access to its electronic filing systems and to the electronically transmitted tax return data those systems contain. IRS has taken steps to improve perimeter defenses and prevent individuals from gaining unauthorized access to e-file systems and electronically transmitted data through e-file’s external connections with its trading partners. To illustrate, IRS has redesigned the e-file system architecture, strengthened modem controls, and recently installed network control devices that collectively are configured to filter inbound and outbound computer network traffic to e-file computers and allow only authorized traffic through its filters. Although the filters on these devices can be strengthened to deny certain unnecessary network services, they reasonably limit external access to e-file computers from the trading partners’ typical connections. IRS also strengthened user access, password, and operating system controls on network control devices. For example, the agency implemented access rules restricting the use of a certain service, encrypted passwords, and disabled certain risky and unnecessary computer network services on these devices. Moreover, IRS’s redesigned e-file architecture provides additional safeguards against unauthorized external access to unencrypted tax return data stored on e-file computers and includes a network-based intrusion detection capability. While IRS has substantially improved security over external access to its e-file computers, additional improvements are needed to fully protect the electronically transmitted data on those computers from unauthorized access attempts by users on IRS’s internal network. The removal of one network control device and the configuration of several others do not sufficiently limit network traffic to e-file computers from the IRS wide- area network. The agency also has not fully resolved some of the previously reported control weaknesses affecting e-file computers. For example, weak password control practices continue to allow easily guessed passwords, access permissions for certain computer files and directories remain excessive, risky and unnecessary services continue to be available on e-file computers, and a host-based intrusion detection capability is not present. IRS believed it had corrected some of these weaknesses and has longer term actions planned to correct some of the others. Until these weaknesses are corrected or mitigated, e-file computers and the data they contain will continue to be vulnerable to unauthorized access attempts from the IRS wide-area network. Despite the continued existence of certain weaknesses affecting its e-file systems, IRS’s actions indicate that it has taken a systematic, risk-based approach to correcting identified weaknesses. Such an approach will continue to be important in ensuring that corrective actions are effective on a continuing basis and that new risks are promptly identified and addressed. Also, we previously reported that taxpayers who file their returns electronically may not have been fully aware of the risks of filing electronically. For example, IRS did not prescribe minimum computer security requirements for transmitters and did not assess or require an assessment of the effectiveness of computer controls within the transmitters’ operating environment. In response, IRS changed their web site to recommend that taxpayers read and understand the privacy and security policies and procedures of the IRS and of any industry partner that will handle tax return information. Such cautionary language helps to clarify that the security of filing electronically is dependent upon the security of trading partner systems, for which IRS provides no assurance. Similarly, IRS should consider including such cautionary language or referring to such language on its web site in its radio advertisements and printed materials that state e-file is secure. We now turn to the business systems modernization (BSM)—IRS’s ongoing, multiyear, multibillion-dollar program intended to leverage the power of information technology (IT) to revamp how the service does business. Since its start in late 1999, the program has received about $968 million in congressional funding. Going forward, IRS expects to need about a half billion dollars annually in funding over the next 5 years. As of today, BSM consists of 20 ongoing system acquisition projects at different life-cycle stages, along with various program-level initiatives that are to provide IRS the means by which to manage these projects. Over the past 3-plus years, IRS has made important progress in establishing the infrastructure systems that are to provide the platforms, if you will, upon which future business applications will run. Establishing this systems infrastructure is a necessary prerequisite to introducing the business applications that are in turn intended to provide benefits to taxpayers and IRS. During this time, IRS has also made important progress in delivering two systems applications—Customer Communications 2001 and Customer Relationship Management Exam— that are producing benefits as of today. For example, Customer Communications 2001, which is software improvements to IRS’s customer service telephone system, was implemented last summer and is now routing routine taxpayer inquries to automated menu driven information services, thereby freeing IRS customer service representatives to answer complex or less common inquiries. Progress has also been made over this period in establishing the modernization management controls needed to effectively acquire and implement BSM systems. For example, IRS recently issued an updated version of its enterprise architecture (modernization blueprint) for how it wants to transition its business systems environment, thus giving a high-level roadmap to guide and constrain business and technological change. This progress, however, needs to be put into proper perspective with the long-term picture of planned BSM delivery of measurable mission value. In particular, the nature of progress thus far should not be viewed solely in the context of what taxpayer service and IRS efficiency benefits are being realized today. Rather, this progress should also be viewed in terms of laying the necessary foundation from which the benefits of future applications can be realized. As a matter of fact, at this point in time, the level of tangible mission-related benefits that have been realized from modernization investments are not yet commensurate with costs incurred. In our view, this is not unreasonable because, as depicted in figure 1, expected return on these and future investments are to materialize later when new business applications are brought on line. Despite important progress, IRS is not where it committed to be in acquiring both infrastructure and application systems and not where it needs to be in implementing modernization management controls. This is because IRS’s first priority and emphasis has been to get the newer, more modern systems—with their anticipated benefits to taxpayers—up and running. In so doing, however, the establishment of management capacity to ensure that these systems are introduced successfully has not been given equal attention and thus has not kept up. As shown in figure 2, this emphasis on new systems progress adds significant cost, schedule, and performance risk that escalates as the program advances. Simply stated, proceeding without these controls increases the risk of not delivering promised systems capabilities on time and within budget. Moreover, these risks are amplified as IRS moves forward because interdependencies among current ongoing projects and the complexity of associated work activities to be performed, have and will continue to increase dramatically as more system projects move into the latter stages of their life-cycles and are deployed. More recently, IRS has acknowledged this risk and initiated efforts to better balance controls with project pace and workload. Testimony before this subcommittee last spring outlined the same general concern that we are stating today. At that time, we feared that systems workload and pace were getting too far ahead of the agency’s ability to deal with them effectively, i.e., having proper management controls and capacity in place. Since then, IRS has continued to move forward with its ongoing infrastructure and business application projects while simultaneously taking steps to implement missing management controls and capabilities. During this time, however, the imbalance in project workload and needed management capacity has remained a concern. More recently, our report of this past February recommended that the commissioner of internal revenue reconsider the scope and pace of the program to better strike a balance with the agency’s capacity to handle the workload. The commissioner agreed, promising action in these areas. In particular, the commissioner agreed to align the pace of the program with the maturity of IRS’s controls and management capacity, including reassessing the portfolio of projects that it planned to proceed with during the remainder of fiscal year 2002. BSM officials plan to complete this reassessment and present it to the commissioner and BSM executive steering committee for approval in the next month or two. The commissioner also made correcting remaining management control weaknesses a priority. For the past 7 years we have discussed with and communicated to IRS the importance of establishing sound management controls to guide its systems acquisition projects. Beginning in 1995, when IRS was involved in an earlier attempt to modernize its tax processing systems, and continuing since then, we have made recommendations to implement fundamental modernization management capabilities before acquiring new systems; we concluded then that until such controls were in place, IRS was not ready to invest billions of dollars in building modernized systems. We are not unmindful of IRS’s competing pressures: to implement these controls and to also field new systems. However, to the extent that essential controls are still lacking, risk is unavoidably increased. The areas in which we have reported in the past that controls are lacking and have made recommendations for improvement fall into five interrelated and interdependent IT management categories, as shown in figure 3: investment management, system life-cycle management, enterprise architecture management, software acquisition management, and human capital management. In December 1998 IRS hired a systems integration support contractor to help it develop and implement these capabilities. In 1999, the commissioner adopted a modernization strategy that required, for example, (1) the use of incremental investment decisionmaking, (2) adherence to a rigorous systems and software life-cycle management method, and (3) development and implementation of an enterprise architecture or modernization blueprint to guide and constrain the content, sequencing, and integration of systems investments. This laudable approach, however, included simultaneously proceeding with project acquisition, in anticipation that program controls would be in place and functioning when the projects reached their later, less formative stages. Figure 4 illustrates this approach. During the modernization’s first 18 months, progress in implementing these management controls was slow, while at the same time project acquisitions moved rapidly. At that time we reported to IRS’s Senate and House appropriations subcommittees that projects were getting ahead of the modernization management capacity that needed to be in place to manage them effectively. In response to our concerns and the subcommittees’ direction, IRS scaled back on its projects, giving priority to implementing needed management capacity. As previously noted, IRS has since made important progress in its modernization management capacity. Most recently, we reported that IRS (1) reviewed the contractor’s quality-assurance function, concluding that it was not always effective and that it required a higher level of IRS– contractor oversight, and listing specific corrective actions that could reduce the probability of deliverables not meeting expectations; (2) defined risk management policies and procedures for its enterprise life- cycle approach; (3) issued version 2.0 of its enterprise architecture and implemented steps to ensure project alignment with the architecture and integration with other modernization projects; and (4) plans an independent assessment of selected projects against the Software Engineering Institute’s SA-CMM level 2 requirements by December 31, 2002. In addition, IRS recently hired technical and managerial executives with substantial private-sector experience for its reorganized BSM program office. We remain concerned, however, because projects are entering critical stages, and not all essential management controls are in place and functioning. In particular, in our ongoing work for IRS’s appropriations subcommittees, we found that it is proceeding with building systems— including detailed design and software development work—before it has for example (1) fully implemented mature software acquisition management processes, (2) developed and deployed a human capital management strategy, and (3) established effective cost and schedule estimating practices. Weaknesses in any one of these modernization management controls introduces an unnecessary element of risk to the BSM program, but the combination of these weaknesses introduces a level of risk that increases exponentially over time. IRS has reported that BSM projects have already encountered cost, schedule, and/or performance shortfalls. Our analysis has showed that weak management controls contributed directly to these problems, or were the basis for prudent, proactive IRS decisionmaking not to start or continue projects. Given that IRS’s fiscal year 2002 BSM spending plan supports progress towards the later phases of key projects and continued development of other projects, it is likely that BSM projects will encounter additional cost, schedule, and performance shortfalls. Figure 5 depicts this combination of circumstances. | The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was, for the second consecutive year, able to prepare financial statements that received an unqualified opinion. However, this achievement once again came through the use of substantial, costly, and time-consuming processes to compensate for serious systems and control deficiencies. IRS continues to make progress in its performance management system by using a strategic planning and budgeting process to reconcile competing priorities and initiatives with available resources. In the area of computer security, IRS corrected or mitigated many of the previously reported weaknesses, including those affecting its electronic filing systems. It also is implementing a computer security program that should help manage its risks in this area. Business Systems Modernization is IRS' ongoing program to leverage information technology and is integral to IRS achieving its customer-focused vision. To date, IRS has made progress in establishing the systems infrastructure, delivering system applications, and developing the management controls and capabilities necessary to effectively acquire and deploy modernized systems. |
OPM’s mission and responsibilities are found in Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which provides for the effective implementation of civil service laws, rules, and regulations. OPM also evaluates the effectiveness of personnel policies, agency compliance with laws, rules, regulations and office directives, and agency personnel management evaluation systems. Overall, OPM manages the federal government’s human capital and is charged with helping agencies shape their human capital management systems and holding them accountable for effective human capital management practices. OPM does this in such a way to help ensure that: (1) the federal government acquires, develops, manages, and retains employees with the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to deliver services that the American public want and deserve; and (2) agencies consistently uphold governmentwide values, such as merit system principles, veteran’s preference, and workforce diversity. OPM is also responsible for administering retirement, health benefits, and other insurance services to government employees, annuitants, and beneficiaries. In January 2001, we added strategic human capital management to our list of federal programs and operations identified as high risk. In a July 2001 report, we evaluated OPM’s goals and measures for assessing the state of human capital at federal departments and agencies and found weaknesses in OPM’s measures of workforce skills and employee accountability and made recommendations to help address these issues, among other things. OPM has since taken action on our recommendations. In a January 2003 report, we examined OPM’s progress towards its own transformation, as OPM shifts its role from less of a rule maker and enforcer to more of a consultant and strategic partner in leading and supporting agencies’ human capital initiatives. We concluded that OPM should exert greater leadership to prepare the way for human capital reform. In June 2006, we testified before the Subcommittee that OPM has made commendable efforts towards transforming itself to being a more effective leader of governmentwide human capital reform. We noted however, that it could build upon that progress by addressing challenges that remain in four key areas: (1) leadership; (2) talent and resources; (3) customer focus, communication, and collaboration; and (4) performance culture and accountability. First, in the area of leadership, we reported that information from OPM employees based on our analysis of the 2004 FHCS suggests that information from their top leadership does not cascade effectively throughout the organization and that many employees do not feel their senior leaders generate a high level of motivation and commitment in the workforce. These views on leadership were more strongly expressed by employees in OPM’s Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability (HCLMSA) division—one of OPM’s key divisions and a unit responsible for partnering with agencies and vital to successful human capital reform efforts. In May 2006, OPM developed a series of action plans to address issues raised in the 2004 FHCS, including a number of planned actions to improve overall and cross-divisional communication and employee views of senior management. Second, we reported that in the area of talent and resources, OPM has made progress in assessing current workforce needs and developing leadership succession plans; however, if OPM is to lead governmentwide human capital reform it can do more to identify the skills and competencies of the new OPM, determine any skill and competency gaps, and develop specific steps to fill such gaps. Third, we reported that the views of agency CHCOs and HR directors as well as OPM employees show that OPM can improve its customer service and communication with agencies and that guidance to agencies is not always clear and timely. Executive branch agency officials also pointed to OPM’s Human Capital Officer (HCO) structure as a frequent barrier to efficient customer response and felt there are greater opportunities for OPM to dialogue and collaborate with CHCOs and HR directors. Fourth, with respect to performance culture and accountability, we reported that OPM has made progress in creating a “line of sight” or alignment and accountability across its leaders’ expectations and organizational goals in its strategic and operational plan; however, success in achieving governmentwide reform objectives will rest, in part, on OPM’s ability to align performance and consistently support mission accomplishment for all employees of the organization. As Congress and other stakeholders have recognized the importance of strategic human capital management, several legislative changes have occurred. In November 2002, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created DHS and provided the department with significant flexibility to design, in consultation with OPM, a modern human capital management system affecting approximately 180,000 personnel. Specifically, the legislation granted DHS certain exemptions from the laws governing federal civilian personnel management in Title 5 of the U.S. Code—providing DHS with certain human capital flexibilities to establish a contemporary human capital system that will enable it to attract, retain, and reward a workforce able to meet its critical mission. To address governmentwide human capital management challenges, Title XIII of the Homeland Security Act, also cited as the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002, established CHCO positions in 23 agencies to advise and assist the heads of agencies and other executive branch agency officials in their strategic human capital management efforts. The act also created the CHCO Council to advise and coordinate the activities of members’ agencies on such matters as the modernization of human resources systems, improved quality of human resources information, and legislation affecting human resources operations and organizations. The act also included significant provisions related to direct hire authority, the use of categorical ranking in the hiring of applicants instead of the “rule of three,” expansion of voluntary early retirement and “buy-out” authority, a requirement to discuss human capital approaches in Government Performance and Results Act reports and plans, and a provision raising the total annual compensation limit for senior executives and other senior professionals in agencies with performance appraisal systems that have been certified by OPM and OMB as making meaningful distinctions in relative performance. In November 2003, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 provided DOD—the largest federal employer—with authority, in conjunction with OPM, to establish a flexible and contemporary human resources system, including a new (1) pay and performance management system, (2) appeals process, and (3) labor relations system—which together comprise the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). Like the Homeland Security Act, this legislation granted DOD certain exemptions from Title 5 of the U.S. Code and provided significant flexibility for designing NSPS, allowing for a new framework of rules, regulations, and processes to govern how defense civilian employees are hired, compensated, promoted, and disciplined. The NSPS would cover approximately 700,000 employees. Also, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Congress authorized a new performance-based pay system for members of the SES. Under the new system, which took effect in January 2004, senior executives no longer receive annual across-the-board or locality pay adjustments. Executive branch agencies must now base pay adjustments for senior executives on individual performance and contributions to agency performance through an evaluation of their unique skills, qualifications, or competencies, as well as the individual’s current responsibilities. The new pay system raises the cap on base pay and total compensation. For 2006, the caps are $152,000 for base pay (Level III of the Executive Schedule) with a senior executive’s total compensation not to exceed $183,500 (Level I of the Executive Schedule). If an agency’s senior executive performance appraisal system is certified by OPM and OMB concurs, the caps are increased to $165,200 for base pay (Level II of the Executive Schedule) and $212,100 for total compensation (the total annual compensation payable to the Vice President). In addition to SES employees, many agencies use senior employees with scientific, technical, and professional expertise, commonly known as senior-level (SL) and scientific or professional (ST) positions. SL/ST positions have a lower maximum rate of basic pay than SES employees, and unlike the SES, their individual rate of pay does not necessarily have to be based on individual or agency performance. However, an agency may apply to OPM and OMB for certification of its SL/ST performance appraisal system, and if the system is certified as making meaningful distinctions in relative performance, an agency may raise the total annual compensation maximum for SL/ST employees to the salary of the Vice President. However, certification does not affect the maximum rate of basic pay of SL/ST employees. To qualify for these pay flexibilities, OPM must certify and OMB must concur that an agency’s senior executive performance appraisal system meets certification criteria jointly developed by OPM and OMB. Two levels of performance appraisal system certification are available to agencies: full and provisional. To receive full certification, which lasts for 2 calendar years, the design of agency systems must meet nine certification criteria and agencies must provide documentation of prior performance ratings to demonstrate compliance with the criteria. Agencies can receive provisional certification, which lasts for 1 calendar year, if they have designed but not yet fully implemented a senior executive performance appraisal system, or do not have a history of performance ratings that meets the certification criteria. In September 2006, we testified before the Subcommittee that the certification criteria are generally consistent with our body of work identifying key practices for effective performance management systems. In addition, we testified that these senior executive and senior-level employee performance-based pay systems serve as an important step for agencies in creating alignment or “line of sight” between executives’ performance and organizational results. A detailed description of the certification criteria and process is provided in appendix II. The congressionally authorized senior executive performance-based pay system, implemented in 2004, as well as OPM’s implementation of other governmentwide human capital initiatives, provides an opportunity to learn from experiences gained and apply those lessons to the implementation of future human capital reforms. As OPM is likely to play a similar leadership and oversight role in future reforms, the following lessons learned may also assist OPM as it moves forward in the design and implementation of other human capital reforms and initiatives. To successfully transform or implement a large-scale change initiative such as governmentwide human capital reform, an organization must fundamentally reexamine its processes, organizational structures, and management approaches—including its workforce capacity. Strategic workforce planning addresses two critical needs: (1) aligning an organization’s human capital program with its current and emerging mission and programmatic goals, and (2) developing long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to achieve programmatic goals. As mentioned previously, in 2003, we reported that OPM was undergoing its own transformation—from less of a rulemaker to more of a consultant in leading and supporting executive agencies’ human capital management systems. As the organization transforms and OPM works to balance rules and tools and change its organizational culture, it is critical that OPM examine its internal capacity to ensure its workforce has the competencies to meet the multiple demands of the future and successfully implement human capital reforms. In particular, we have reported that a one-size-fits-all approach to human capital management is not appropriate for the challenges and demands government faces and that there should be a governmentwide framework to guide human capital reform. Thus, it is particularly important that OPM’s workforce have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to understand how to balance the need for consistency across the federal government with the desire for flexibility, so that they can assist individual agencies in tailoring their human capital systems to best meet their needs. Striking this balance will not be easy to achieve, but is necessary to maintain a governmentwide system that is responsive enough to adapt to agencies’ diverse missions, cultures, and workforces. Executive branch agency experiences with implementing the senior executive performance-based pay systems and other human capital efforts point to a lack of knowledge and experience among OPM staff. Several executive branch agency officials commented that OPM conveyed a “we’ll know it when we see it” method of communicating expectations, and was thus unable to effectively communicate to agencies their expectations regarding the senior executive performance appraisal system certification process. In addition, executive branch agency officials told us they believe the DOD and DHS human capital reform efforts severely taxed OPM technical resources, specifically pay and compensation employees. One CHCO surmised that OPM’s capacity is dependent upon a few key employees skilled in these areas, particularly innovative pay and compensation approaches. An OPM senior executive confirmed this, telling us that turnover and retirement were problematic for pay and compensation experts at OPM. Also, a majority of agency CHCOs, HR directors, and their staffs expressed concern about whether OPM generally has the technical expertise needed to provide timely and accurate human capital guidance and advice both now and in the future. We previously reported that problems arose for many agencies when technical questions had to be communicated via OPM HCOs to the policy experts at OPM. This issue may have been magnified for some agencies by the frequent turnover or reassignments among HCOs. The HCO position was established in 2003 at OPM as part of its transformation efforts to help improve customer service to agencies. An executive branch agency official told us that her agency was assigned four different HCOs in the last 18 months. According to OPM’s most recent strategic human capital plan, OPM recognizes that HCO staff will need to develop greater familiarity with areas beyond each individual’s technical expertise and plans for its staff to gain “cross-functional knowledge” through means such as staff participation on cross-functional work groups that address various initiatives, training opportunities, and other developmental assignments that lend themselves to professional growth and development. Further, our analysis of OPM’s agency results from the 2004 FHCS and 2005 follow-up focus group data suggest that OPM employees may not be receiving sufficient training to enhance their skills and competencies. OPM employees were not as close to the employees in the rest of government in agreeing with the statement “I receive the training I need to perform my job.” Fifty-three percent of OPM employees agreed with this statement as compared with 60 percent of employees from the rest of government. Focus group participants selected this item as one of the most important issues for OPM to address—expressing the view that OPM’s culture does not support training, employees do not have time to attend training classes, and managers are not given sufficient and timely training budgets. An OPM executive supported these views, stating that it can be a struggle to convince managers that people should attend training. A former senior OPM official told us that he did not have an overall budget, including training, for his department while at OPM. OPM has begun to align its workforce skills and competencies to meet additional requirements stemming from future reforms and other environmental changes. For example, OPM conducted agencywide skills and competencies assessments in 2001 and 2003, and has conducted skills assessments for certain targeted occupations—information technology, human resource management, and selected mission-critical positions. Validating skills and competencies is important because the workforce skills and competencies needed to be a strategic partner, toolmaker, or consultant may be different from those needed in the past to be a rulemaker or enforcer of regulations. Importantly, OPM has also updated several of its key strategic management documents. First, in March 2006, OPM issued its Strategic and Operational Plan, 2006-2010—the starting point and basic underpinning for transformation. The plan’s strength is in its definition of clear, tangible goals and deliverables. However, the plan does not include a description of the relationship between the long-term goals and annual goals. Second, in August 2006, OPM updated its Corporate Leadership Succession Management Plan to include all of its supervisory, management, and executive positions with succession planning profiles that contain a list of specific and general technical competency requirements for each position. This is important because the problem of a lack of knowledge and experience at OPM may be compounded by the potential loss of institutional knowledge. In June 2006, we testified that without careful planning, employee attrition, including senior executives, could pose the threat of an eventual loss in institutional knowledge, expertise, and leadership continuity at OPM. OPM’s succession planning data show that as of July 2006, nearly half of its 376 supervisors, managers, and executives were eligible for either early or regular retirement. Based on historical trend data, OPM projects an overall loss (including retirements) of roughly 65 to 75 supervisory, managerial, and executive positions per year. Even more recently, at the end of September 2006, OPM issued its Plan for the Strategic Management of OPM’s Human Capital for fiscal years 2006-2007. According to OPM’s strategic human capital plan, voluntary attrition among employees overall at OPM has averaged approximately 11 percent over a 3-year period and voluntary retirements comprised approximately 25 percent of separations from 2003 to 2006. OPM has developed strategies to help support its succession planning objectives, such as providing resources to improve and develop the competence of internal candidate pools to develop deep “bench strength.” In addition, OPM plans to target recruitment efforts around the critical and core competencies it has identified for each position and to use recruitment incentives and flexibilities to attract the most desirable candidates. These succession planning efforts are important because leading organizations engage in broad, integrated succession planning efforts that focus on strengthening both current and future organizational capacity. OPM’s ability to lead and oversee human capital management policy changes that result from potential human capital reform could be affected by its internal capacity and ability to maintain the right skills and competencies of its workforce, as well as an effective leadership team. The steps taken by OPM demonstrate progress in achieving its transformation and it must continue on this path by closely monitoring its actions to align its workforce to meet current and emerging demands. A new agencywide skills assessment would enable OPM to better align its workforce with needed resources to meet such demands. Building and maintaining expertise in areas that will be critical to future reforms, such as classification and pay and compensation policy, and ensuring that OPM employees receive opportunities for training and development that will help them in assisting agencies with the implementation of reforms, are critical for future reform success. These workforce and training goals and objectives also should be included in the means and strategies developed in OPM’s strategic planning process. Moving forward, OPM can continue to monitor implementation of long-term strategies to better prepare its workforce for change and continue to build its workforce capacity to meet the demands of the future. We have reported that the federal government should follow a phased approach towards human capital reforms that meets a “show me” test. That is, each agency should be authorized to implement a reform only after it has shown it has met certain conditions, including having the institutional infrastructure in place necessary for success. This infrastructure includes, at a minimum, a modern, effective, credible, and validated performance management system that provides a clear linkage between institutional, unit, and individual performance-oriented outcomes, as well as providing for adequate internal and external safeguards to ensure fairness, and prevent abuse, and is nondiscriminatory. The absolutely critical role that a solid infrastructure plays has been amply demonstrated by our own and other organizations’ experiences in shifting to market-based and more performance-oriented pay. These experiences have shown that market-based and performance- oriented pay reforms cannot be simply overlaid on existing ineffective performance management systems, but must be part of a broader strategy of change management and performance improvement initiatives. As the leader of the federal government’s human capital strategies, OPM plays a key role in fostering and guiding improvements in all areas of strategic human capital management across the executive branch. As part of its key leadership role, OPM can assist—and as appropriate, require—the building of the infrastructures within agencies needed to successfully implement and sustain human capital reforms and related initiatives. OPM can do this in part by encouraging continuous improvement and providing appropriate assistance to support agencies’ efforts. As we testified in September 2006, overall, the regulations that OPM and OMB developed to administer a performance-based pay system for executives serve as an important step for agencies in creating an alignment or “line of sight” between executives’ performance and organizational results. However, OPM’s approach to certifying agencies’ senior executive performance appraisal systems could more fully promote the building of the institutional infrastructures needed to effectively implement the senior executive performance and pay reforms. Under OPM and OMB regulations, agencies that are authorized to implement the new pay flexibilities will receive either a provisional or full certification. Provisionally certified agencies receive the same pay flexibilities as those with fully certified systems, even though agencies with provisional certification do not meet all nine of the certification criteria. In essence, the provisional category of certification constitutes a phased approach to implementing performance-based pay systems by allowing agencies to work toward meeting the OPM and OMB full certification requirements as they are implementing the new authorities. Of the 33 performance appraisal systems that have been certified in 2006, only the Department of Labor’s system for its senior executives received full certification. The remaining 32 systems received provisional certification, the majority of which were provisionally certified for the third straight year. (See app. III for the list of agencies that have received certification of their performance appraisal systems since 2004.) An agency that is provisionally certified must reapply annually rather than the every 2 years that is required of agencies with full certification. This annual reapplication process for agencies with provisional certification is important in order to help ensure continued progress in fully meeting congressional intent in authorizing the new performance-based pay system. Moreover, continuing scrutiny from OPM and OMB is important because there is no required time frame under which a provisionally certified agency must demonstrate it meets all the OPM and OMB criteria and thereby receive full certification. In that regard, OPM’s January 2006 guidance required agencies with provisional certification to submit information to OPM and OMB showing improvements the agency has made in response to comments from those agencies. This requirement was underscored in OPM’s October 31, 2006, guidance for calendar year 2007, that asked agencies to highlight in their certification request any description or evidence of improvements made as a result of comments from OPM or OMB in response to the agency’s 2006 certification submission. As noted, OMB and OPM’s efforts represent an important step in fostering “lines of sight” within the agencies. Nonetheless, OPM has opportunities to further strengthen its efforts. More specifically, additional front-end and ongoing OPM involvement appears to be needed to assist agencies in achieving and maintaining full certification. Executive branch agency officials said OPM’s role in the certification process focuses more on enforcing rules regarding applications for certification, rather than guiding an agency to build the necessary infrastructure for a performance-based pay system. In addition, these executive branch agency officials said OPM has helped them improve their pay systems, but they also said OPM should provide more active assistance during the design and implementation of the system rather than waiting to evaluate the end results. Further, an agency CHCO said OPM is not prepared to interact with agencies to progressively develop and sustain their senior executive performance- based pay systems over time once they get through the certification process. Since the certification process started in 2004, OPM has raised the bar for certification by placing a greater emphasis on measurable business outcomes. Raising the bar in the spirit of continuous improvement is appropriate, but agencies can not achieve the higher standards unless they are continually building the foundations essential to support augmented requirements and new improvements. The only two agencies that were fully certified in 2004, the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, were unable to retain full certification when they reapplied in 2006. An official from one of these agencies said they applied for full certification in 2006, but received provisional certification because OPM had raised the bar for meeting full certification. The agency official stated that upon receiving full certification in 2004, OPM stopped communicating with the agency about new developments in the certification process. In addition, this official said they were “left in the dark” about how OPM’s certification standards were potentially changing, and how the process for certification was evolving. It was not until 4 months after they submitted their application to recertify their system that OPM raised concerns regarding “weak” executive performance measures, though this agency believed that it had achieved the requirement according to OPM’s guidance. The agency opted to accept provisional certification rather than redo its senior executive performance plans and wait for full certification. In general, OPM has recognized that agencies need more assistance and guidance developing an infrastructure to support performance management systems for executive branch employees below the senior executive level. OPM developed the Performance Appraisal Assessment Tool (PAAT) and has promoted performance management beta sites to address this need. The PAAT provides agencies with an assessment tool that focuses on the design and implementation of performance management systems, the training and development of supervisors, and the agency’s accountability for the system. The PAAT helps agencies identify weaknesses in their performance management systems and provides agencies an opportunity to develop a comprehensive strategy for revising its performance management practices to better support a results- focused performance culture. The beta sites give agencies an opportunity to test their nonexecutive performance management systems on a small scale before expanding them agencywide. Agencies and OPM use the PAAT to evaluate the progress of the beta sites. This approach of evaluating and testing allows agencies to build internal capacity, gain experience, and demonstrate that they are prepared to link pay to performance for all employees. However, as one executive branch agency official noted, the PAAT is used more by OPM to ensure accountability than to build agency infrastructure. Similar to concerns expressed about the senior executive system certification process, an agency HR director said OPM does not provide “up-front” implementation plans to agencies that outline the required agency investment and infrastructure needed to successfully meet new human capital requirements. Going forward, OPM can help agencies build this infrastructure by designing its human capital reform efforts to promote and support continuous agency improvement. OPM will need to expand the focus of its efforts to help identify the obstacles that are impeding agencies from achieving desirable human capital outcomes, and then take appropriate measures to address them and set mutually agreed-upon goals for improvement. These actions will help ensure that agencies continue to make substantive progress toward modernized, credible performance management systems, and that provisional certifications do not become the norm. OPM can also take steps to define what it will take in terms of fact-based and data-driven analyses for agencies to demonstrate that they are ready to receive this certification, and then help agencies develop the infrastructure necessary to produce these results. Our prior work has found that high-performing organizations strategically use partnerships and that federal agencies, such as OPM, must effectively manage and influence relationships with organizations outside of their direct control. High-performing organizations strengthen accountability for achieving crosscutting goals by placing greater emphasis on collaboration, interaction, and teamwork across organizational boundaries, to achieve results that often transcend specific boundaries. Communicating with stakeholders is especially crucial in the public sector, where policy making and program management demand transparency and a full range of stakeholders and interested parties are concerned not only with what results are to be achieved, but also which processes are used to achieve those results. Our prior work has identified a number of opportunities where OPM could improve its collaboration with stakeholders. In 2003, we reported that the lack of coordination between OPM and GSA, the lead agencies for the governmentwide telework initiative, created confusion for federal agencies in implementing their individual telework programs. More recently, our review of oversight of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) requirements and guidance found little evidence of OPM coordination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Insufficient understanding of OPM and EEOC’s mutual roles, authority, and responsibilities resulted in a lost opportunity to realize consistency, efficiency, and public value in federal EEO and workplace diversity human capital management practice. We have also reported that using interagency councils has emerged as an important leadership strategy in both developing policies and gaining consensus and consistent follow-through within the executive branch. With respect to human capital reforms, we have reported that the CHCO Council should be a key vehicle for this needed collaboration and is vital to addressing crosscutting federal government strategic human capital challenges. Executive branch agency officials said the senior executive performance appraisal certification process was a missed opportunity for OPM to better collaborate with the CHCO Council. One agency CHCO said OPM traditionally uses council meetings to present information to the CHCOs, but does not encourage discussions or seek the council’s input. Another agency CHCO said the council has rarely been used to debate new human capital policies. This one-way communication does not provide a forum for agency CHCOs to contribute ideas or discuss their experiences. Some CHCOs and HR directors pointed to OPM’s successful collaborative efforts through the CHCO Council, such as its assistance to agencies in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; however, they also told us that OPM misses opportunities to partner more effectively with agencies. An agency CHCO said that more robust policy discussion on the council would promote community building and collaboration among agencies and OPM. According to OPM officials, OPM provided the CHCO Council with opportunities to discuss the certification process. However, some CHCOs wanted more involvement in crafting the fundamental design and applicable issues of the certification process, rather than commenting on draft regulations after the fact. While the new interim final regulations were being developed and issued in 2004, OPM provided two presentations to the full CHCO Council on the new requirements for senior executive performance appraisal systems along with periodic updates. The CHCO Council minutes show that one presentation focused on the design of the new performance appraisal system and the second on the process for obtaining certification. Agency CHCOs were able to ask questions about the proposal and make suggestions. For example, one CHCO suggested that OPM reconsider the timing of the recertification process since it coincided with agencies’ annual performance appraisal cycle, and this has proven to be a key issue for the certification process. Further, CHCOs were given a very short time frame of 24 hours to review and comment on the proposed certification criteria. Executive branch agency officials overwhelmingly reinforced a need for OPM to do more to collaborate and facilitate information sharing with the council and HR directors. More collaboration with the CHCO Council during the design phase of human capital initiatives would enable OPM to incorporate agency suggestions and build a governmentwide consensus for reform. OPM staff involved with the certification process told us that in 2004, OPM sought input on the certification criteria from OMB and members of the CHCO Council. There were also opportunities for agency comments when the draft regulations were released and through the CHCO Council. In addition, the CHCO Council Subcommittee of Performance Management reviewed the process as well. However, most comments focused on pay flexibilities and not the certification process. OPM has taken some steps to improve the effectiveness of the council by expanding the membership to include deputy CHCO positions. Some deputy CHCOs are also the agencies’ HR directors, but others perform different deputy roles. Including deputy CHCOs will bring additional HR expertise and provide more leadership continuity to the council. An agency CHCO said OPM is taking other steps to improve collaboration with agencies, such as promoting more CHCO Academy meetings on the certification process and reinstituting executive resource forums, which help keep agency executive resources staff current on OPM’s certification policies. A recent executive resource forum gave agency executive resource staff an opportunity to discuss common concerns about the certification process. Moving forward, collaboration will be critical as human capital reforms begin to take hold across government. If OPM is to lead reform successfully, it will need to strategically use the partnerships it has available to it, such as the CHCO Council and other key stakeholders. OPM can continue to build upon its expansion of the CHCO Council and promotion of CHCO Academies and executive resource forums. These are important steps toward building a collegial environment for debating and collaborating on future human capital reforms. Our work on high-performing organizations and successful transformations has shown that communication with customers should be a top priority and is central to forming the partnerships needed to develop and implement transformation strategies. This communication is most effective when done early, clearly, and often. Providing agencies with clear and timely guidance is one way of effectively communicating with OPM’s customers. In the past, we have reported concerns with OPM’s communications pertaining to their leadership in implementing governmentwide human capital initiatives and have recommended ways in which OPM could improve its guidance to federal agencies. For example, in 2003 we reported that an initial lack of clarity in telework guidance for federal agencies from OPM led to misleading data being reported on agencies’ telework programs. As a result, we recognized the need for OPM to provide agencies with consistent, inclusive, and unambiguous support and guidance. The initial lack of clear and timely guidance has hindered agency implementation of senior executive performance appraisal systems. When the certification process began in 2004, OPM provided agencies with limited guidance for implementing the new regulations. Officials at a majority of the CHCO Council agencies told us they did not have enough guidance to properly prepare for meeting the certification criteria. With the release of the regulations in 2004, OPM’s initial guidance consisted of a list of documents required for provisional and full certification and a sample cover letter to accompany each application. The lack of more specific guidance created confusion as agencies attempted to understand the broadly defined regulatory criteria and adjust to the requirements for certification. Agencies did not fully understand what the regulations required in order to receive certification, thus resulting in an inefficient process and increasing the workload of agency human resource staffs unnecessarily. According to executive branch agency officials, when contacting OPM for clarification or assistance with requirements, they received conflicting answers and advice. Executive branch agency HR directors said that they sometimes received mixed messages on the certification process from OPM, and it appeared that answers would change depending on the individual an agency was working with at OPM. One agency CHCO said that rather than providing agencies with guidance, OPM tends to wait to receive the agency submission and then determine if it meets requirements. While OPM directs agencies to its Web site and online resources, an agency CHCO said they found this information useful, but this did not fulfill all of their information needs. OPM officials we spoke with about this agreed that they need to provide clear and consistent guidance to agencies and said they are working to improve this. They said the certification of agency performance appraisal systems has been an iterative, learning process, and OPM is positioning itself to provide more guidance to agencies. For example, OPM has continued to update its annual certification guidance to provide agencies with more assistance when developing their senior executive appraisal systems for certification. The guidance for calendar year 2006 includes explicit examples from executive performance plans that comply with the certification criteria. The continued late issuance of certification guidance in the years since the 2004 regulations were released has plagued the process by delaying the certification of agency systems. Since certification of appraisal systems runs on the calendar year, an agency’s provisional certification expires on December 31st unless they submit an application and receive certification for the next calendar year. To avoid a gap in certification between calendar years, applications for appraisal system certification need to be approved before January 1st. However, OPM did not issue guidance for calendar year 2006 until January 5, 2006, causing agencies to lose time in developing their 2006 applications for review and certification. This delay was compounded when OPM clarified its guidance in a January 30, 2006, memorandum telling agencies that senior executive performance appraisal systems would not be certified for calendar year 2006 if the performance plans did not hold executives accountable for achieving measurable business outcomes. Some agencies had to revise their submissions, where necessary, to meet OPM’s additional requirements, causing further delays. Untimely guidance has been a recurring problem with OPM’s implementation of the certification process, beginning when OPM initially developed the regulations for certifying appraisal systems. In late November 2003, Congress passed legislation to create the new senior executive performance-based pay system to take effect in January 2004; however, it took 8 months for OPM to publish the certification criteria included in the interim regulations when jointly released with OMB in July 2004. As a result, agencies that were certified in 2004 were unable to operate under the higher executive pay caps until late in the calendar year. In December 2004, OPM issued guidance for calendar year 2005. The guidance was issued before the start of the calendar year, but only by a few weeks. On November 1, 2006, OPM posted a memorandum to heads of departments and agencies from the Director of OPM, notifying them of guidance for agencies seeking certification for calendar year 2007. These delays and late revisions exacerbate the time crunch agencies face when applying for certification. According to executive branch agency officials, after agencies’ performance cycles end on September 30, they essentially have 90 days until the end of the calendar year when their current certification expires if they are provisionally certified or in their final year of full certification. Within this time frame, agencies must conduct senior executive performance assessments and reviews, develop performance plans for the next performance year, and compile agency and senior executive performance data for the certification application. The late release of certification guidance adds a level of uncertainty to the process that can delay an agency’s submission of its application until after the start of the calendar year. Some agencies delay preparing their certification applications because they do not know when OPM will release its annual guidance or if there will be any changes in requirements from the previous year. This creates a gap in certification after an agency’s current certification expires. Until the agency’s senior executive performance appraisal system is recertified, it must operate under the lower “uncertified” executive pay cap of $152,000 in 2006 ($13,200 less than for certified systems), while the cap on total compensation is $183,500 ($28,600 less than for certified systems). OPM has acknowledged that the pay limitations in this certification gap can negatively impact an agency’s ability to recruit, reassign, and retain qualified senior executives. Executive branch agency officials expressed similar concerns about how the certification gap limits their ability to attract and hire new executives. They also said the certification gap creates an uneven playing field between agencies with certified systems and agencies that are still awaiting recertification. In July 2006, OPM issued regulations to alleviate one of the concerns with the certification gap. The regulations now allow agencies to increase the pay rates of senior executives once the agency is certified, even if it happens after the start of the calendar year. These regulations resolve a symptom of the certification gap, but do not address the underlying causes of the time crunch agencies face when applying for certification. Also, according to OPM officials, the administration has submitted a legislative proposal to Congress to eliminate the calendar year basis for certification. However, such legislation has not been introduced. Moving forward, OPM could alleviate confusion, delays, and inefficiencies by providing agencies with clear and timely guidance for implementing human capital reforms. OPM needs to clearly communicate its expectations and provide agencies with adequate time to adjust to any changes in requirements. When designing new human capital initiatives, OPM could work with agencies to identify what guidance agencies will need and develop a timeline for when OPM will release such guidance. A different time frame for certifying performance appraisal systems could also help alleviate the time crunch agencies face when applying for certification. We have reported that leading practices and benchmarking are important to supporting agency transformation efforts, and often include case illustrations of leading practices in our reports. In May 2003, we recommended that OPM work to more thoroughly research, compile, and analyze information on the effective and innovative use of human capital flexibilities and more fully serve as a clearinghouse in sharing and distributing information. OPM began working with a contractor in the summer of 2005 to review hiring flexibilities and authorities to better determine which ones are used and not used, who is using them, and when and how they are being used; however, it is still unclear if OPM has created a “clearinghouse” of information to help agencies meet their human capital needs. In 2004, we stated that agencies need to provide OPM with timely and comprehensive information about their experiences in using various approaches and flexibilities to improve their hiring processes, and that OPM could serve as a facilitator in the collection and exchange of information about agencies’ effective practices and successful approaches. Executive branch agency officials told us that OPM could have better facilitated the sharing of best practices for developing and implementing senior executive appraisal systems. According to OPM, in the last 3 years, it has reviewed and certified about 100 applications for appraisal system certification. OPM could use this archive of information to identify some best practices for developing certified systems, but OPM has not fully shared this information with agencies. Director Springer said OPM has met with officials from the only agency currently with full certification, the Department of Labor (DOL), to study what they have done right. However, Director Springer did not know if other agencies had taken the initiative to contact DOL to learn from their success. A senior OPM official said OPM did not provide agencies with examples of “best practices” for certification applications because OPM did not want agencies to think there was only one “right way” to get certified. We have reported that a “one size fits all” approach to human capital management is not appropriate, but we also recognized the value of documenting a range of best practices which agencies can tailor to their specific needs. One agency HR director said agencies were anxious to learn about what was going on at other agencies and did not understand why OPM was reluctant to share information. Without sufficient guidance from OPM, agencies relied on each other where possible to develop an understanding of the certification requirements. One CHCO also took the initiative to use CHCO Academy meetings to engender information sharing among agencies about the application process. However, agencies were unable to resolve uncertainties and disagreements about the regulatory requirements without clearer guidance from OPM. Executive branch agency officials said best practices for certification could help them improve the design of their performance appraisal systems. For example, executive branch agency officials said best practices for developing senior executive performance measures would help them make their performance plans more results based, as required for certification. Recently, OPM has taken steps to share information among agencies. In September 2006, OPM provided agencies’ executive resource directors with samples of agency senior executive performance plans, though OPM did not specify why these samples were selected and if they should serve as best practices for other agencies. Moving forward, OPM should facilitate the sharing of best practices for human capital reforms among federal agencies. Director Springer has said she wants the CHCO Council to develop a best practices initiative to collect and share information on the certification process. The CHCO Council could be used to facilitate best practices for other human capital initiatives as well. Providing a forum for agencies to learn from each others’ experiences will allow agencies to share effective strategies and avoid common pitfalls. We have reported that communication during a transformation is not about just “pushing the message out.” Given the uncertainties that performance-based pay systems may generate for agencies and employees accustomed to receiving more standardized pay increases, two-way communication is especially important in an environment of human capital reform. Creating opportunities for employees and customers to communicate concerns and experiences surrounding a transformation allows them to feel that their experiences are important and acknowledged. Once this employee and customer feedback is received, it is important to use this solicited feedback to make any appropriate changes to the implementation of the transformation. For example, OPM uses its FHCS as an important method of gathering its own employee feedback and has used this information to take actions to improve its organization. In addition, OPM recognizes that it is important to notify and involve the employees affected by personnel demonstration projects, which are similar to the senior executive performance-based pay system, though OPM does not require those implementing such demonstration projects to obtain feedback. However, according to its Demonstration Projects Evaluation Handbook, OPM suggests that a survey is one method that could be used to obtain employees’ views on the impact of the demonstration project to help develop lessons learned that could be shared with the affected agency, as well as governmentwide. We have also reported that high-performing organizations understand they need to continuously review and revise their performance management systems through monitoring their systems, informally and formally, including listening to employees’ and stakeholders’ views. OPM does not actively solicit and act on feedback from agencies on the implementation of the certification process. Executive branch agency HR directors said there was not a formal mechanism, such as a survey instrument, for agencies to provide feedback to OPM on its guidance and assistance to agencies. An OPM executive within the HCLMSA division confirmed that OPM does not have a formal feedback mechanism; however, this executive said OPM converses with agencies regularly so they did not feel the need to obtain information in this way. Informal feedback from agencies is primarily communicated through the HCOs. OPM holds regular meetings of the HCOs to discuss agency concerns. However, executive branch agency officials said OPM does not always act to address these concerns. OPM also gathers agency feedback through the CHCO Council and executive resource forums. OPM’s current feedback mechanisms are important and valuable, but they could be supplemented, though not replaced, with more formal outreach. Formal feedback mechanisms can ensure that OPM gathers a full range of views by giving everyone an opportunity to comment. Formal feedback also provides a mechanism for collecting the views of clients and employees in one place, allowing OPM to track and report progress over time. Also, OPM does not gather feedback from senior executives who are directly affected by the new performance appraisal systems and does not require agencies to survey senior executives, even though agencies are approaching the fourth year of implementation. Director Springer said OPM has not surveyed members of the SES about their attitudes towards the new system. In September 2006, she said it would be premature to conduct a survey before the system takes hold, but she did not say when the timing might be appropriate. Also, the 2006 FHCS, OPM’s most recent survey that gathers employees’ perceptions of federal human capital practices in their agencies, did not include any questions specifically designed to gather feedback on changes to senior executive performance systems. However, Director Springer said OPM plans to analyze a recent survey of SES members conducted by the Senior Executive Association to obtain the experience and views of SES members on the new executive systems. Going forward, OPM should recognize the usefulness of agencies’ and senior executive employees’ views on the certification process and identify a systematic approach to obtain feedback on this and future human capital reforms. Feedback mechanisms, such as survey or focus groups, could help OPM identify what its customers think OPM is doing well, and where OPM needs to improve. Once obtained, feedback information should be considered in developing new agency guidance and OPM should take steps to address any specific agency concerns, as appropriate. High-performing organizations understand they need to continuously review and revise their performance management systems to achieve results and accelerate change. These organizations continually review and revise their human capital management systems based on data-driven lessons learned and changing needs in the environment. We have reported that agencies seeking human capital reform should consider doing evaluations that are broadly modeled on the evaluation requirements of the OPM demonstration projects. Under the demonstration project authority, agencies must evaluate and periodically report on results, implementation of the demonstration project, cost and benefits, impacts on veterans and other equal employment opportunity groups, adherence to merit system principles, and the extent to which the lessons from the project can be applied governmentwide. Such an evaluation could ensure accountability, facilitate congressional oversight, allow for any midcourse corrections, and assist the agency in benchmarking its progress with other efforts. Also, monitoring the implementation of new pay systems is important because unintended consequences may arise. Organizations have found they should be open to refining their systems. For example, we have reported that in order to spread the pay increases among as many employees as possible, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) found that managers tended not to award merit pay increases to top- performing employees when they were to be promoted in the career ladder and as a result, these high-performing employees were not getting the merit pay increases they deserved. FDIC recognized that this unintended consequence needed to be corrected in future iterations of the pay system and managers needed help in learning how to make the necessary distinctions in employees’ contributions. As we noted in our September 2006 testimony, OPM needs to carefully monitor the implementation of agencies’ senior executive performance management systems, especially those that have provisional certification. This is because, as also noted earlier in this report, agencies with provisional certification have only met four of nine required criteria for certification and can still receive the pay flexibilities of the new system. In other words, agencies can receive the benefits of the new pay-for- performance system without meeting all of its requirements and having safeguards in place. We testified in October 2005 that in our view such provisional certifications should not be an option under any broad-based classification and compensation reform proposal. Although OPM does not have an evaluation strategy, it is taking steps to monitor how agencies are making meaningful distinctions in senior executive performance. Such distinctions are required by statute and are one of the nine criteria for certifying agencies’ senior executive performance appraisal systems (as shown in app. II). Once agencies have provisional or full certification, OPM monitors this criterion by measuring the distributions of agencies’ performance ratings and pay. This information helps OPM determine if agencies are making meaningful distinctions among the performance of their senior executives. Such distinctions as part of an effective performance management system are important because they allow the organization’s leadership to appropriately reward those who perform at the highest level. In its Report on Senior Executive Pay for Performance for Fiscal Year 2005, OPM stated that the data indicate that federal agencies are taking seriously the requirement to develop rigorous appraisal systems and to make meaningful distinctions in performance ratings and pay. All reporting agencies have moved away from pass/fail appraisal systems and now have at least one performance level above “fully successful.” In fiscal year 2005, 43 percent of career SES governmentwide were rated at the highest performance level, compared to 75 percent in 2003 prior to the implementation of the SES pay-for-performance system. Further, OPM reported for fiscal year 2005 that the percentage of SES rated at the highest performance level declined 16 percent from the prior year. OPM also reported that the largest increases in salary went to SES rated at the highest performance level. Although SES pay and performance award amounts vary by agency based on factors such as compensation strategy, funding, and agency performance levels, OPM believes these general trends suggest a further refinement may be occurring in the process of distinguishing outstanding performers. Developing an evaluation strategy that works within OPM’s existing required systems—such as the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF)—is one approach that OPM can take to track agencies’ progress in implementing their senior executive performance systems as well as hold them accountable for meeting OPM’s certification criteria. For example, DOD officials suggested that OPM could work with agencies to develop metrics under the HCAAF to determine whether agency performance management systems were making meaningful distinctions based on relative performance or other such important criteria. These metrics could be reported in current systems, such as the President’s Management Agenda (PMA). Because OPM carries out its role in a decentralized environment where the results of its efforts largely take place at federal agencies outside its direct control, it is particularly important that OPM develop a strategy to track agencies’ progress in meeting its human capital reform goals. OPM could require evaluations that are broadly modeled on the evaluation requirements of the OPM demonstration projects. It can work within its currently required systems to make reporting requirements less onerous and part of agencies’ routines. As we testified in September 2006, in the future, OPM should maintain a focus on continuous improvement of agency systems by monitoring the certification process, determining whether any obstacles are impeding agencies from receiving full certification, and taking appropriate measures to address them. Significant reforms are already underway to modernize the federal government’s human capital management systems to better position agencies to meet the challenges of the 21st century. OPM is taking steps to better prepare itself and agencies for governmentwide human capital reform through the implementation of the senior executive performance appraisal system certification process, other performance management initiatives, such as its PAAT and beta sites, and other governmentwide human capital initiatives. These reform efforts present an opportunity for OPM to evaluate and learn from its approach to implementing these initiatives—lessons that can be applied to ongoing and future human capital reforms. OPM’s workforce and succession planning efforts are also vital to ensuring it has the internal capacity to lead and implement reforms. This includes building and maintaining the needed skills and competencies for OPM’s evolving role in assisting agencies. While OPM has taken steps through its planning efforts to assess its workforce needs, it can better prepare its workforce by reexamining its competencies in light of its updated strategic management framework in order to meet future demands. Agencies have raised concerns with OPM’s workforce capacity in general, and more specific concerns with OPM’s implementation of the senior executive performance appraisal system. These include the lack of clear and timely guidance, the need for more sharing of best practices, and the year-end time crunch agencies face gathering the required information for OPM to certify their systems. Further, OPM does not obtain formal feedback from agencies on the implementation of the executive systems to assist OPM in better understanding agency concerns and the difficulties they face with implementation. Although OPM recognizes the value of obtaining employees’ views on reform efforts, as it encouraged with past demonstration projects, it has not encouraged obtaining such feedback for the executive performance system. In addition, having an evaluation strategy to monitor agencies’ overall results of the senior executive performance system could help ensure accountability and provide transparency for Congress, other agencies, and stakeholders. To better align OPM’s workforce skills and competencies for future human capital reform efforts, we recommend that the Director of OPM: Reexamine OPM’s agencywide skills and competency assessment in light of its updated strategic management documents. To assist executive branch agencies in meeting the requirements for the certification of their senior executive performance appraisal systems, we recommend that the Director of OPM: Develop and publish a timeline for the issuance of certification guidance. This timeline should be developed with the input of the CHCO Council and provide agencies with adequate time to adjust to any changes in guidance. Evaluate alternatives that could remedy the year-end time compression that agencies face when trying to meet OPM application requirements and avoid a gap in certification. Work with the CHCO Council to develop a formal mechanism for sharing leading practices for implementing human capital initiatives, such as the senior executive performance appraisal certification and other performance management reform initiatives. This forum should include an adequate range of examples and best practices so as not to promote one- size-fits-all solutions. Develop a formal feedback mechanism to obtain agencies’ views on OPM’s implementation of the certification process. OPM should utilize this feedback to identify common agency concerns and develop action plans to address these concerns. Work with executive branch agencies to develop a systematic approach for obtaining employee attitudes towards human capital reforms. Develop a strategy to allow OPM, other executive agencies, and Congress to monitor the progress of implementation of the senior executive performance-based pay system. We provided a draft of this report to the Director of OPM for review and comment. We received a written response from the Director, which is reprinted in appendix IV. The Director stated that OPM has made progress toward achieving its operational and strategic goals, but neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations. Director Springer provided a number of informative comments describing progress OPM has made towards achieving its planned goals, and initiatives undertaken to assist federal agencies with meeting their hiring demands of the future. Director Springer said OPM has made progress towards achieving its operational and strategic goals since she became Director of OPM. The Director provided information that while beyond the scope of the report, nonetheless is helpful in understanding the context in which OPM is operating. Specifically, she commented that OPM associates have worked together and with agencies to achieve the objectives that are tied to OPM’s Strategic and Operational Plan, 2006-2010, and since March 2006, OPM has achieved its plan’s objectives, on time or ahead of schedule. Also, OPM provided a number of technical comments and, where appropriate, we have made changes to the report language to reflect these comments. We are sending copies of this report to the Director of OPM, the Director of OMB, and other interested parties. Copies will be made available to others upon request. This report is also available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6806. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. To identify lessons learned to inform the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) capacity to lead and implement human capital reform, we reviewed OPM’s implementation of the senior executive performance appraisal system certification process. We reviewed and analyzed key documents including the legislation that authorized the new senior executive performance-based pay system and the regulations for the appraisal system certification process that were jointly issued by OPM and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We also reviewed and analyzed the subsequent guidance issued by OPM to agencies to prepare their certification applications, policy memos from OPM to agencies, and other documentation related to the certification process. To gain an agency perspective of the certification process and to a limited degree on other performance management initiatives, such as the Performance Appraisal Assessment Tool (PAAT) and the performance management beta sites, we interviewed 22 of the 23 members of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council and/or their corresponding agency HR directors. The one agency that was not available for an interview provided us with written responses to our questions. In addition, we conducted interviews with OPM’s five associate directors and other senior-level staff, such as the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Human Capital Officer, to obtain their views of OPM’s management practices. We were briefed by the OPM Director and other OPM officials on the OPM Strategic and Operational Plan, 2006-2010 and aspects of OPM’s human capital strategies and initiatives. We also interviewed staff from OMB related to their role in the performance appraisal system certification process. To evaluate OPM’s workforce capacity, we interviewed OPM’s former and current Chief Human Capital Officers and analyzed the OPM Strategic and Operational Plan, 2006-2010. To understand how OPM’s workforce is aligned to support the implementation of potential reforms, we analyzed a number of internal OPM documents such as its August 2006 Corporate Leadership Succession Management Plan and A Plan for the Strategic Management of OPM’s Human Capital fiscal years 2004-2007. As the Plan for the Strategic Management of OPM’s Human Capital fiscal years 2006- 2007 was issued at the conclusion of our review, we were not able to analyze this document. To evaluate OPM’s efforts to build agency infrastructure, we reviewed documents related to OPM’s PAAT and the performance management beta site initiatives. We selected these initiatives because of similarities to the certification process and their likelihood to yield tangible lessons related to OPM’s capacity to lead future reforms. To evaluate OPM’s feedback mechanisms, we reviewed survey questions included in the 2004 and 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS). The 2006 survey was launched in June 2006 and results are not yet available. To assess OPM’s measures for tracking progress, we analyzed operational goals in the OPM Strategic and Operational Plan, 2006-2010. We also reviewed OPM’s measures of senior executive performance ratings and pay in its Report on Senior Executive Service Pay for Performance for Fiscal Year 2005. We leveraged our work that resulted in our June 2006 testimony on OPM’s internal capacity. We used the 2004 FHCS, the latest available survey data, and summaries of OPM’s 2005 focus groups to assess employee views of OPM’s organizational capacity. We reviewed OPM’s analysis of its 2004 FHCS results and conducted our own analyses of survey results using 2002 and 2004 FHCS data sets provided to us by OPM. On the basis of our examination of the data and discussions with OPM officials concerning survey design, administration, and processing, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of our review. We analyzed summaries of OPM employee focus groups that OPM conducted in fall 2005 to understand factors contributing to employees’ responses on the 2004 FHCS. We used the participant comments from these focus groups to illustrate employee perspectives. We also analyzed the May 2006 action plans developed by OPM to address issues identified in the focus groups. Other documents reviewed included our previous work related to OPM, high-performing organizations, organizational transformation, and human capital management reforms. We also reviewed GAO’s previous recommendations on a range of issues related to OPM’s human capital leadership role and internal management challenges. We conducted our work from October 2005 to September 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The new senior executive pay system raises the cap on base pay and total compensation. For 2006, the caps are $152,000 for base pay (Level III of the Executive Schedule) with a senior executive’s total compensation not to exceed $183,500 (Level I of the Executive Schedule). If an agency’s senior executive performance appraisal system is certified by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concurs, the caps are increased to $165,200 for base pay (Level II of the Executive Schedule) and $212,100 for total compensation (the total annual compensation payable to the Vice President). To qualify for senior executive pay flexibilities, agencies’ performance appraisal systems are evaluated against nine certification criteria. As shown in table 2, the certification criteria jointly developed by OPM and OMB are broad principles that position agencies to use their pay systems strategically to support the development of a stronger performance culture and the attainment of the agency’s mission, goals, and objectives. There are two levels of performance appraisal system certification available to agencies: full and provisional. To receive full certification, the design of the systems must meet the nine certification criteria and agencies must provide documentation of prior performance ratings to demonstrate compliance with the criteria. Full certification lasts for 2 calendar years. Agencies can receive provisional certification if they have designed but not yet fully implemented a senior executive performance appraisal system, or do not have a history of performance ratings that meets the certification criteria. Provisional certification lasts for 1 calendar year. OPM’s role in the certification process begins when an agency submits a certification application to OPM. If fully certified, the certification is good for the remainder of the calendar year in which the agency applied, as well as all of the following calendar year. If provisionally certified, an agency’s certification is only good for the calendar year in which it applied. For example, if an agency is provisionally certified in October 2005, its certification would expire in December 2005. To ensure the agency’s submission is complete, the agency’s OPM contact—the Human Capital Officer (HCO)—first verifies that the application contains the required materials and documents. If complete, the HCO sends copies to the two OPM divisions responsible for reviewing the application, the Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability (HCLMSA) division and the Strategic Human Resources Policy (SHRP) division, and an additional copy to OMB. The agency’s submission is reviewed independently by representatives within HCLMSA and SHRP to bring different perspectives to the review. The submissions are evaluated against the nine certification criteria, but each review team has its own method for analyzing the application. After an initial review, the reviewers from HCLMSA and SHRP hold an informal meeting to discuss the submission. After a more thorough review, the reviewers meet again in a formal panel along with the agency’s HCO and decide whether they have enough information to reach a certification decision about the agency. If the panel concludes there is not enough information to reach a decision, the HCO will request that the agency provide any missing or additional supporting information. If the panel decides there is sufficient information to reach a decision, it will either certify or reject the application. When an application is rejected, the HCO works with the agency to help modify its performance appraisal system so that it meets the criteria. If the application is approved by OPM, the HCO contacts OMB for concurrence. OMB uses the same nine criteria to evaluate agency applications, but primarily focuses on measures of agency performance. If OMB concurrence is not achieved, the HCO works with the agency to address OMB’s concerns until resolution is reached. Once OMB concurs, the Director of OPM certifies the agency’s performance appraisal system and the agency is formally notified with a letter. The HCO also provides additional comments to the agency on their system and identifies any improvement needs. For example, these comments may direct the agency to focus more on making meaningful distinctions in performance. Figure 1 provides an overview of the certification process. Appendix III: Agency Certification Status for Calendar Years 2004, 2005, and 2006 as of October 2006 (SES or SL/ST) 1-year provisional (P) Department of Health And Human Services Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) F (2006/2007) F (2004/2005) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) P (SES or SL/ST) 1-year provisional (P) F (2004/2005) Agency did not submit an appraisal system application, submitted an application but was not approved, or withdrew an application for OPM’s review. Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-6806 or [email protected]. In addition to the contact named above, Trina Lewis, Assistant Director; Thomas Beall; Carole J. Cimitile; William Colvin; Elizabeth Curda; S. Mike Davis; William Doherty; Charlene Johnson; Jeffrey McDermott; Michael Volpe; Katherine H. Walker; and Gregory H. Wilmoth made major contributions to this report. | As the agency responsible for the federal government's human capital initiatives, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) must have the capacity to successfully guide human capital transformations necessary to meet the governance challenges of the 21st century. Given this key role, GAO was asked to assess OPM's capacity to lead further reforms. In June 2006, GAO testified on several management challenges that OPM faces. This report--the second in a series--supplements that testimony and, using the new senior executive performance-based pay system as a model for understanding OPM's capacity to lead and implement reform, identifies lessons learned that can inform future reforms. GAO analyzed relevant laws and documents, and obtained views from the Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council and human resource directors, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) staff, and OPM officials. The congressionally authorized senior executive performance-based pay system, implemented in 2004, provides an opportunity to learn from experiences gained and apply those lessons to the design and implementation of future human capital reforms. Under the performance-based system, before an agency can receive the new pay flexibilities, OPM, with concurrence from OMB, must certify that the agency's appraisal system meets certain criteria. OPM is likely to play a similar leadership and oversight role for future reforms. |
The discussion is particularly animated in the Roman Catholic Church , where despite calls for change, the Vatican has reiterated the teaching that the priesthood cannot be opened to women and married men because of the model set by Jesus.
Dr. King gave an interview and showed the papyrus fragment, encased in glass, to reporters from The New York Times , The Boston Globe and Harvard Magazine in her garret office in the tower at Harvard Divinity School last Thursday.
She repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said.
But the discovery is exciting, Dr. King said, because it is the first known statement from antiquity that refers to Jesus speaking of a wife. It provides further evidence that there was an active discussion among early Christians about whether Jesus was celibate or married, and which path his followers should choose.
“This fragment suggests that some early Christians had a tradition that Jesus was married,” she said. “There was, we already know, a controversy in the second century over whether Jesus was married, caught up with a debate about whether Christians should marry and have sex.”
Dr. King first learned about what she calls “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” when she received an e-mail in 2010 from a private collector who asked her to translate it. Dr. King, 58, specializes in Coptic literature, and has written books on the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, Gnosticism and women in antiquity.
The owner, who has a collection of Greek, Coptic and Arabic papyri, is not willing to be identified by name, nationality or location, because, Dr. King said, “He doesn’t want to be hounded by people who want to buy this.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
When, where or how the fragment was discovered is unknown. The collector acquired it in a batch of papyri in 1997 from the previous owner, a German. It came with a handwritten note in German that names a professor of Egyptology in Berlin , now deceased, and cited him calling the fragment “the sole example” of a text in which Jesus claims a wife.
Photo
The owner took the fragment to the Divinity School in December 2011 and left it with Dr. King. In March, she carried the fragment in her red handbag to New York to show it to two papyrologists: Roger Bagnall, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, at New York University , and AnneMarie Luijendijk, an associate professor of religion at Princeton University .
They examined the scrap under sharp magnification. It was very small — only 4 by 8 centimeters. The lettering was splotchy and uneven, the hand of an amateur, but not unusual for the time period, when many Christians were poor and persecuted.
It was written in Coptic, an Egyptian language that uses Greek characters — and more precisely, in Sahidic Coptic, a dialect from southern Egypt , Dr. Luijendijk said in an interview.
Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.
What convinced them it was probably genuine was the fading of the ink on the papyrus fibers, and traces of ink adhered to the bent fibers at the torn edges. The back side is so faint that only five words are visible, one only partly: “my moth[er],” “three,” “forth which.”
“It would be impossible to forge,” said Dr. Luijendijk, who contributed to Dr. King’s paper.
Dr. Bagnall reasoned that a forger would have had to be expert in Coptic grammar, handwriting and ideas. Most forgeries he has seen were nothing more than gibberish. And if it were a forgery intended to cause a sensation or make someone rich, why would it have lain in obscurity for so many years?
“It’s hard to construct a scenario that is at all plausible in which somebody fakes something like this. The world is not really crawling with crooked papyrologists,” Dr. Bagnall said.
The piece is torn into a rough rectangle, so that the document is missing its adjoining text on the left, right, top and bottom — most likely the work of a dealer who divided up a larger piece to maximize his profit, Dr. Bagnall said.
Much of the context, therefore, is missing. But Dr. King was struck by phrases in the fragment like “My mother gave to me life,” and “Mary is worthy of it,” which resemble snippets from the Gospels of Thomas and Mary. Experts believe those were written in the late second century and translated into Coptic. She surmises that this fragment is also copied from a second-century Greek text.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
The meaning of the words, “my wife,” is beyond question, Dr. King said. “These words can mean nothing else.” The text beyond “my wife” is cut off.
Dr. King did not have the ink dated using carbon testing. She said it would require scraping off too much, destroying the relic. She still plans to have the ink tested by spectroscopy, which could roughly determine its age by its chemical composition.
Dr. King submitted her paper to The Harvard Theological Review, which asked three scholars to review it. Two questioned its authenticity, but they had seen only low-resolution photographs of the fragment and were unaware that expert papyrologists had seen the actual item and judged it to be genuine, Dr. King said. One of the two questioned the grammar, translation and interpretation.
Ariel Shisha-Halevy, an eminent Coptic linguist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem , was consulted, and said in an e-mail in September, “I believe — on the basis of language and grammar — the text is authentic.”
Major doubts allayed, The Review plans to publish Dr. King’s article in its January issue.
Dr. King said she would push the owner to come forward, in part to avoid stoking conspiracy theories. ||||| CAMBRIDGE—A Harvard professor has identified what appears to be a scrap of fourth century Egyptian papyrus that contains the first known explicit reference to Jesus as married, a discovery that could fuel the millennia-old debate about priestly celibacy in the Catholic church.
The fragment, which has been preliminarily authenticated but still must undergo further testing, portrays Jesus as referring to a woman as his legitimate disciple—most likely his wife, whom the text’s author probably believed to be Mary Magdalene.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Karen L. King, a historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School, holding the scrap of fourth century Egyptian papyrus. (Bill Greene / Globe Staff)
The text is not evidence Jesus was married, said the professor, Karen L. King, a historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School, who is scheduled to discuss her discovery at an international gathering of Coptic scholars in Rome on Tuesday. But she said it may cast new light on the history of early Christianity, including the formation of Christian views of celibacy and whether women were members of Jesus’s inner circle, issues still intensely relevant to the Catholic church, which allows only celibate men to be priests.
“The issue has far from gone away,” King said.
The fragment is smaller than a business card, and appears to have been torn from the middle of a page of a codex, or primitive book, written in a southern Egyptian dialect. Its owner, who declines to be identified publicly, does not know where it was found.
It contains just eight broken lines, scrawled in a crude Coptic hand.
The fourth says: “… Jesus said to them, ‘My wife….”
The next line reads: “…she will be able to be my disciple.”
The text does not prove that Jesus had a wife, King emphasized. Even if it is actually a translation of a second century Greek text, as King theorizes, it would have been composed more than a century after the death of Jesus. The earliest and most reliable information about the historical Jesus is silent on the question of his marital status, King said.
“It’s not saying we’ve got the smoking gun that Jesus is married,” she said.
But the fragment—which King provocatively calls “The Gospel of Jesus’s wife”—does show that some early Christians believed Jesus was married, probably to Mary Magdalene, a follower of Jesus who the gospels say was the first person to see him after his resurrection.
It contains echoes of other early Christian writings, suggesting to King that it may have been part of a debate about the spiritual importance of celibacy verus marriage.
“The entire question about whether Jesus was married or not first arose only 150 years after Jesus died in the context of Christians discussing ... whether Christians should marry or remain celibate,” she said. “And that’s interesting.”
The fragment appears to underscore the diversity of Christian ideas about Jesus’s life when the faith was still in its infancy, before the books of the New Testament had been canonized and religious councils convened to resolve differences over beliefs.
“It helps to remind us that practically everything that later generations told about Jesus was put together and edited by somebody well after his death, and represents the view of Jesus that they were trying to get across,” said Roger Bagnall, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World and professor of ancient history at New York University, who helped King authenticate the papyrus.
“It’s not going to change history in a dramatic way,” he said, “but it does give us a much sharper view of one little corner of Christianity we couldn’t see into before.”
The notion that Jesus may have been married, considered heretical by the Catholic church, has long captivated artists and conspiracy theorists. The success of Dan Brown’s 2003 international best-seller, “The Da Vinci Code,” which posits that the Catholic church covered up the marriage and progeny of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, testifies to its potency in the popular imagination.
Aware of the incendiary nature of her finding, and its potential for being dismissed as a forgery or distorted as evidence that Jesus was married, King has treated it a bit like academic dynamite.
Reporters for three publications—the Globe, the New York Times, and Harvard Magazine—were invited to a joint interview last week in King’s office, a book-lined nook with arched, leaded-glass windows on the top floor of Andover Hall. Each promised not to publish until 1 p.m. Tuesday, when King was scheduled to speak at the Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, across the street from the Vatican.
The reporters were allowed to contact Bagnall and two other scholars who had helped authenticate and interpret the fragment, AnneMarie Luijendijk, a papyrologist and professor of religion at Princeton University who contributed to King’s paper, and Ariel Shisha-Halevy, a Coptic linguist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Reporters were not allowed to discuss King’s finding with other scholars in advance of her presentation at the Coptic Conference, the International Association for Coptic Studies.
Yet King decided to publicize her discovery before completing testing on the composition of the ink on the fragment. Such testing, which she plans to finish before the scheduled publication of her article in the January issue of the Harvard Theological Review, would not definitively date the fragment but could ensure that the chemicals in the ink matched what scribes in southern Egypt would have used in the 4th century.
But because so many people involved in the authentication process have now seen it, King feared word could leak out about its existence in a way that sensationalized its meaning. A more controlled release, she surmised, might raise the level of discussion about it. Major discoveries such as this are often brought forth at the Coptic Conference, she added, which meets once every four years—this year, by happenstance, in Rome.
And evidence of its authenticity was strong enough to make her think it was time to invite other scholars to weigh in, she said. In any case, she added, she stood to gain little if she was wrong.
“This is not a career maker,” said King, a tenured professor at Harvard. “If it’s a forgery, it’s a career breaker.”
* * *
Two of three anonymous scholars tapped by the Harvard Theological Review to review King’s 52-page paper cast doubt on the fragment’s authenticity, relying on low-resolution images to reach their conclusion. But both recommended that King bring the papyrus to an expert papyrologist. Neither knew King had already done so, having taken it to Bagnall. One of these reviewers also raised some questions about its grammar, but King said she and Shisha-Halevy were able to address those.
“I have no competence at all to decide whether this fragment is authentic or not,” Shisha-Halevysaid in a phone interview. But, he said, a couple of linguistic constructions pointed to by the reviewer “do not warrant considering this fragment a fake. Even if they are not usual … they are good Coptic.”
King said the owner of the papyrus wishes to remain anonymous because he does not want to be hounded by people who wish to buy the papyrus, which he has now offered to give to Harvard as part of a purchase of his collection of Greek, Coptic, and Arabic papyri. Harvard has not decided whether to pursue the offer.
* * *
It was a stranger’s e-mail that alerted King to the existence of the fragment. The man wanted to know whether the professor could help translate an ancient Coptic papyrus in his collection.
The man told King he had an inkling from a previous owner that it might say something about Jesus being married. When King looked at the photo he sent, the words leapt out at her immediately.
But was it authentic? Or a fraud?
“In this field, we keep having these things appear,” she said. “So I think it’s almost a reflex to be suspicious.”
King put it aside; she was busy with other projects. Last summer, the owner asked her a second time to take a look.
She stared at the photos again. This time, she spotted textual similarities to two other early Christian writings, the Gospels of Mary and Thomas.
King relented. She would look more closely, she told the owner, if he agreed to allow her to properly authenticate it. She needed to see the actual artifact. In December 2011, the man hand-delivered the papyrus to Harvard.
King needed as much information as possible about its origins, but the owner did not have much. He did not know, he said, where the fragment was found. All he had were a letter and a note, copies of which he e-mailed to King, addressed to the previous owner, an H.U. Laukamp, who had a Berlin address.
The letter to Laukamp, dated July 1982, from Peter Munro, a professor at the Free University of Berlin, states that his colleague, a Professor Fecht, had seen examining Laukamp’s papyrus collection.
The note—undated, unsigned and written in German—stated that Fecht believed this “small fragment … is the sole example of a text in which Jesus uses direct speech with reference to having a wife.”
King sent photos of the papyrus to Bagnall, who showed it to a small group of papyrologists he meets with regularly.
“We put it up on the screen and we all sort of said, ‘Eeew,’ ” said Bagnall, one of the world’s leading papyrologists. “We thought it was ugly. And it is ugly. The handwriting is not nice—thick, badly controlled strokes made by somebody who didn’t have a very good pen.”
Was it genuine? Bagnall, too, needed to see it.
In March 2012, King tucked the papyrus into her red leather bag along with her iPad and boarded a train to New York, where she and Luijendijk, a former student of King’s, met Bagnall at his office. They sat for several hours around a table, looking at the fragment under magnification and different kinds of light, noticing different details and talking through possible scenarios.
The fibrous, dual-layered material was clearly papyrus, an ancient Egyptian precursor to paper made of the pith of a plant that grew along the Nile. It seemed to be ancient; the pith, which makes the smooth writing surface, had worn off, along with the ink, on one side. They could see a spot where a tiny insect appeared to have nibbled at the surface.
Ancient papyrus is available for purchase on the antiquities market, however, so King and her colleagues had to figure out whether the ink was applied in ancient times or by a modern forger.
Infinitesimal details suggested it was genuine: Tiny fibers shredding from the sides of the paper contained almost invisible traces of ink from lost letters. Damage to fibers after they had been inscribed suggested the ink had been laid on the surface long ago, not recently.
The handwriting, workmanlike and laid on with a nubby pen, seemed to date to the 4th century. Its irregular, blocky script is more common in private letters—and quite unusual for a literary text, Bagnall said. But it is also plausible, he said, that it was the work of an unskilled scribe with a poor pen.
All in all, Bagnall said, “The preponderance of evidence is clearly in favor of authenticity, both because it is so hard to imagine who could have faked it and how, but also because there is nothing inherently suspect about it,” Bagnall said. “You’ve got the physical object, the handwriting, the language, and the content. There’s not a single one of those that seems to me suspect.”
When King and Luijendijk emerged from Bagnall’s office, they headed toward the subway to the train station. King joked: “The fragment gets a cab.”
As they drove down Fifth Avenue, King paused.
“Let’s stop,” she recalls telling Luijendijk, “and just notice this moment.”
King, who grew up in rural Montana, and Luijendijk, a Dutch scholar, had begun to believe they had stumbled across something extraordinary.
On the way back to Cambridge, King was a little more careful with her red leather bag.
* * *
King’s next task was to determine what the papyrus said—and what it meant. Because the text has no margins, each line is missing a beginning and ending. King used other ancient Christian texts as guides.
She believes that the context of the eight lines on the front side of the papyrus reflects a discussion Jesus was having with disciples about the “the cost of discipleship,” or how becoming a Christian may affect bonds with one’s natal family, similar to passages in Matthew and Luke.
This, she said, was a preoccupation of early Christians at a time when becoming a follower of Jesus meant risking persecution, King said.
“Becoming a Christian means joining a new family, and that may mean leaving your natal family behind,” she said.
The papyrus contains echoes of several other non-canonical gospels dated to the 2nd century, including the Gospels of Mary, Thomas and, especially, Philip, which also discuss discipleship – and seem to hint that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.
King said she and other scholars have argued previously that these references were metaphorical, meant to suggest that Jesus had a close spiritual bond with Mary Magdalene.
But the explicit reference to Jesus as married in “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” suggests to King that the second century writers may not have been speaking figuratively.
The papyrus, together with other writings from the period, suggests that second century Christians were arguing about Jesus’s marital status as part of a debate about whether they themselves should marry, and whether one had to be celibate to be a good Christian.
None of this, King said, affects what scholars know about the historical Jesus. The earliest, best information about him, contained in the gospels of the New Testament, says nothing about whether he was married or not. So it is impossible, she says, to know for sure.
If Jesus were married, King said, it is unlikely his wife would have been Mary of Magdala. Although she is portrayed in the gospels as a close follower of Jesus, women during that period were almost always identified by their relationship to a man. That she is always identified by her hometown makes it unlikely that the writers of the early gospels would have failed to mention such a salient fact.
But the issue may still be important to Christians today—for example, in debates about the celibate, all-male priesthood. King said she believes some may use this discovery “to say this allows us to speak theologically about … marital sexuality in a more positive way.”
Luijendijk said the papyrus paints a fuller picture of the variety of beliefs among early Christians, illustrating once again that Orthodox Christianity did not proceed in a neat line from the birth of Jesus Christ to the present day, she said. And theological differences over marriage, asceticism and sexuality had important implications that still resonate today.
“I expect that people will use this new text to bring up those questions again,” she said. | Shades of the Da Vinci Code: A small scrap of fourth-century papyrus contains this potential bombshell of a line: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife ...’" And a bit later, the text reads, "she will be able to be my disciple." A Harvard historian made it public today, and in interviews with the New York Times, Boston Globe, and Harvard Magazine, she makes clear that while it is not definitive proof that Jesus was married—it was written well after his death—it at least shows that the subject was in play among early Christians. Professor Karen King got the scrap in 2011 from a collector, though its history before that remains unclear. Preliminary testing suggests it's legit, though King now wants other scholars to weigh in. If it holds up, it would be the first ancient text in which Jesus mentions a wife (many think it's Mary Magdalene) and would likely intensify all kinds of debates—from the celibacy of Catholic priests to the role of women in Christian ministry. |
VA is responsible for administering health care and other benefits, such as compensation and pensions, life insurance protection, and home mortgage loan guarantees, that affect the lives of more than 25 million veterans and approximately 44 million members of their families. In providing these benefits and services, VA collects and maintains sensitive medical record and benefit payment information for veterans and their family members. AAC is one of VA’s three centralized data centers. It maintains the department’s financial management and other departmentwide systems, including centralized accounting, payroll, vendor payment, debt collection, benefits delivery, and medical systems. AAC also provides, for a fee, information technology services to other government agencies. As of November 1998, the center either provided or had entered into contracts to provide information technology services, including batch and online processing and workers’ compensation and financial management computer applications, for nine other federal agencies. In fiscal year 1998, the VA's payroll was more than $11 billion and the centralized accounting system processed more than $7 billion in administrative payments. AAC also maintains medical information for both inpatient and outpatient care. For example, AAC systems document admission, diagnosis, surgical procedure, and discharge information for each stay in a VA hospital, nursing home, or domiciliary. In addition, AAC systems contain information concerning each of the guaranteed or insured loans closed by VA since 1944, including about 3.5 million active loans. As one of VA’s three centralized data centers, AAC is part of a vast array of computer systems and telecommunication networks that VA relies on to support its operations and store the sensitive information the department collects in carrying out its mission. The remaining two data centers support VA’s compensation, pension, education, and life insurance benefit programs. In addition to the three centralized data centers, the Veterans Health Administration operates 172 hospitals at locations across the country that operate local financial management and medical support systems on their own computer systems. These data centers and hospitals are interconnected, along with 58 Veterans Benefits Administration regional offices, the VA headquarters office, and customer organizations such as non-VA hospitals and medical universities, through a wide area network. All together, VA’s network services over 700 locations nationwide, including Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Our objective was to evaluate and test the effectiveness of information system general controls over the financial systems maintained and operated by VA at AAC. General controls, however, also affect the security and reliability of nonfinancial information, such as veteran medical and loan data, maintained at this processing center. Specifically, we evaluated information system general controls intended to protect data, files, programs, and equipment from unauthorized access, modification, and destruction; prevent the introduction of unauthorized changes to application and provide adequate segregation of duties involving application programming, system programming, computer operations, security, and quality assurance; ensure recovery of computer processing operations in case of a disaster or other unexpected interruption; and ensure that an effective computer security planning and management program is in place. We restricted our evaluation to AAC because VA's Office of Inspector General was planning to review information system general controls for fiscal year 1998 at the Hines and Philadelphia benefits delivery centers. To evaluate information system general controls, we identified and reviewed AAC's general control policies and procedures. We also tested and observed the operation of information system general controls over AAC's information systems to determine whether they were in place, adequately designed, and operating effectively. In addition, we determined the status of previously identified computer security weaknesses, but did not perform any follow-up penetration testing. We performed our review from October 1998 through March 1999, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Our evaluation was based on the guidance provided in our Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual (FISCAM) and the results of our May 1998 study of security management best practices at leading organizations. After we completed our fieldwork, the director of AAC provided us with updated information regarding corrective actions. We did not verify these corrective actions but plan to do so as part of future reviews. VA provided us with written comments on a draft of this report, which are discussed in the “Agency Comments” section and reprinted in appendix I. AAC has made substantial progress in addressing the computer security issues we previously identified. At the time of our review in 1998, AAC had corrected 40 of the 46 weaknesses that we discussed with the director of AAC and summarized in our September 1998 report on VA computer security. AAC had addressed most of the access control, system software, segregation of duties, and service continuity weaknesses we identified in 1997 and had improved computer security planning and management. For example, AAC had reduced the number of users with access to the computer room, restricted access to certain sensitive libraries, audit information, and established password and dial-in access controls, developed a formal system software change control process, expanded tests of its disaster recovery plan, and established a centralized computer security group. AAC was also proactive in addressing additional computer security issues we identified during our current review. We identified a continuing risk of unauthorized access to financial and sensitive veteran medical and benefit information because the center had not fully implemented a comprehensive computer security planning and management program. If properly designed, such a program should identify and correct the types of additional access control and system software weaknesses that we found. In addition, AAC risks certain types of unauthorized access not being detected because it had not completely corrected the user access monitoring weaknesses we previously identified. Our May 1998 study of security management best practices found that a comprehensive computer security planning and management program is essential to ensure that information system controls work effectively on a continuing basis. Under an effective computer security planning and management program, staff (1) periodically assess risks, (2) implement comprehensive policies and procedures, (3) promote security awareness, and (4) monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the computer security environment. In addition, a central security staff is important for providing guidance and oversight for the computer security planning and management program to ensure an effective information system control environment. AAC had established a solid foundation for its computer security planning and management program by creating a centralized computer security group, developing a comprehensive security policy, and promoting security awareness. However, AAC had not yet instituted a framework for continually assessing risks or routinely monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of information system controls. In March 1999, the director of AAC told us that the center plans to expand its computer security planning and management program to include these aspects. In addition, the director told us that AAC had augmented its security management organization by hiring two additional security experts in May 1999. A comprehensive computer security planning and management program should provide AAC with a solid foundation for ensuring that appropriate controls are designed, implemented, and operating effectively. Periodically assessing risk is an important element of computer security planning because it provides the foundation for the other aspects of computer security management. Risk assessments not only help management determine which controls will most effectively mitigate risks, but also increase awareness and, thus, generate support for adopted policies and controls. An effective risk assessment framework generally includes procedures that link security to business needs and provide for continually managing risk. VA policy requires that risk assessments be performed when significant changes are made to a facility or its computer systems, but at least every 3 years. AAC had not formally reassessed risk since 1996 even though significant changes to the facility and its systems had occurred. For example, AAC management told us that the center had replaced its mainframe computer, implemented a new mainframe operating system, and expanded the facility to accommodate a VA finance center in 1998. Although the director of AAC told us in March 1999 that changes in computer security risks were considered by implementation teams responsible for these events, documentation of such considerations were not available. Formal risk assessments should be performed for such significant changes. The director of AAC also told us that management would perform a risk assessment later in 1999 to comply with VA policy. One reason that AAC had not formally assessed risks when these significant changes occurred was that the center had not developed a framework for assessing and managing risk on a continuing basis. In March 1999, the director of AAC told us that a risk assessment framework would be developed and added to the AAC security handbook. According to the director, this planned risk assessment framework will define the types of changes that require a risk assessment; specify risk assessment procedures that can be adapted to different indicate who should conduct the assessment, preferably a mix of individuals with knowledge of business operations, security controls, and technical aspects of the computer systems involved; and describe requirements for documenting the results of the assessment. In addition to assessing risk to identify appropriate controls, it is also important to determine if the controls in place are operating as intended to reduce risk. Our May 1998 study of security management best practices found that an effective control evaluation program includes processes for (1) monitoring compliance with established information system control policies and guidelines, (2) testing the effectiveness of information system controls, and (3) improving information system controls based on the results of these activities. AAC had not established a program to routinely monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of information system controls. Such a program would allow AAC to ensure that policies remain appropriate and that controls accomplish their intended purpose. Although AAC had substantially corrected previously identified computer security weaknesses, we tested additional access and system software controls and found weaknesses that posed risks of unauthorized modification, disclosure, or destruction of financial and sensitive veteran medical and benefit information. These weaknesses included inadequately limiting access of authorized users to sensitive data and programs, maintaining the system software environment, and reviewing network security. Several of these weaknesses could have been identified and corrected if AAC had been monitoring compliance with established procedures. For example, periodically reviewing AAC user access authority to ensure that it was limited to the minimum required access level based on job requirements would have allowed AAC to discover and fix the types of additional access control weaknesses we identified. Likewise, routinely evaluating the technical implementation of its system software would have permitted AAC to eliminate or mitigate the additional system software exposures we identified. A program to regularly test information system controls would also have allowed AAC to detect additional network security weaknesses. For example, using network analysis software designed to detect network vulnerabilities, we determined that intrusion attempts on 2 of the 10 network access control paths would not be detected. Although AAC fixed this problem before our fieldwork was completed, AAC staff could have identified and corrected this exposure using similar network analysis software available to them. AAC staff told us that they also plan to begin evaluating the intrusion detection system periodically. In addition, AAC had not established a process to test network security when major changes to the network occur. Although AAC had used network analysis software to detect network vulnerabilities earlier in October 1998, we determined that both a production and a development network system had a system program with vulnerabilities commonly known to the hacker community. These vulnerabilities could have provided the opportunity to bypass security controls and gain unlimited access to AAC network systems. Although AAC staff determined that the vulnerable programs were no longer needed and deleted them before our fieldwork was completed, these vulnerabilities could have been prevented had network security been reassessed when the network environment changed. AAC was also not adequately monitoring certain user access activity. A comprehensive user access monitoring program would include routinely reviewing user access activity to identify and investigate both failed attempts to access sensitive data and resources and unusual or suspicious patterns of successful access to sensitive data and resources. Such a program is critical to ensuring that improper access to sensitive information would be detected. Because the volume of security information available is likely to be too voluminous to review routinely, the most effective monitoring efforts are those that selectively target unauthorized, unusual, and suspicious patterns of access to sensitive data and resources, such as security software, system software, application programs, and production data. AAC had begun reviewing failed attempts to access sensitive data and resources, but had not established a program to monitor successful access to these resources for unusual or suspicious activity. In March 1999, the director of AAC told us that the center is expanding its user access activity monitoring to identify and investigate unusual or suspicious patterns of access to sensitive resources, such as updates to security files that were not made by security staff, changes to sensitive system files that were not performed by system modifications to production application programs that were not initiated by production control staff, revisions to production data that were completed by system or deviations from normal patterns of access to sensitive veteran medical and benefit data. In addition to the access activity monitoring and computer security program planning and management weaknesses that remain open from 1997, we identified 16 additional issues during our 1998 review. For example, AAC had not restricted access to certain sensitive data and programs based on job routinely reviewed access authorities granted to employees to ensure that they were still appropriate, adequately reviewed certain components of its operating system to ensure continued system integrity, adequately documented changes to network servers, documented testing of certain emergency changes to its financial issued technical security standards for maintaining the integrity of system and security software for certain operating system environments. AAC had corrected 6 of the 16 additional issues identified in 1998 before we completed our site visit in Austin. Addressing the remaining additional issues should help AAC ensure that an effective computer security environment is achieved and maintained. We discussed these issues with AAC management and staff and were told that they would be addressed by September 1999. AAC had made substantial progress in improving information system general controls. In addition to correcting most of the access control, system software, segregation of duties, and service continuity weaknesses we had previously identified, AAC had strengthened its computer security planning and management program by creating a centralized computer security group, developing a comprehensive security policy, and promoting security awareness. Until AAC completes implementing its computer security planning and management program by establishing a framework for continually assessing risks and routinely monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of information system controls, it will not have adequate assurance that appropriate controls are established and operating effectively. We identified additional access, system software, and application change control weaknesses that continued to place financial and sensitive veteran medical and benefit information on AAC systems at risk of improper modification, disclosure, or destruction and assets at risk of loss. Unauthorized access may not be detected because AAC had not begun identifying and investigating unusual or suspicious patterns of successful access to sensitive data and resources. AAC could have identified and corrected these types of weaknesses, which could also adversely affect other agencies that depend on AAC for computer processing support, had it fully implemented an effective computer security planning and management program. We recommend that the Acting VA Chief Information Officer (CIO) work with the director of AAC to implement policies and procedures for assessing and managing risk on a establish processes for (1) monitoring compliance with established information system control policies and procedures, (2) testing the effectiveness of information system controls, and (3) improving information system controls based on the results of these activities; and expand the center’s user access activity monitoring program to identify and investigate unusual or suspicious patterns of successful access to sensitive data and resources for unauthorized access. We also recommend that the Acting VA CIO coordinate with the director of AAC to ensure that the remaining computer security weaknesses are corrected. These weaknesses are summarized in this report and detailed in a separate report, which is designated for “Limited Official Use,” also issued today. In commenting on a draft of this report, VA agreed to implement our recommendations by September 30, 1999. Specifically, VA stated that AAC would update its security handbook to include a risk assessment framework, establish a program to routinely monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of controls, and complete procedures for monitoring successful access to sensitive computer resources by the end of September 1999. VA also informed us that AAC had taken action to correct all but three of the other weaknesses we identified and plans to address the remaining weaknesses by September 30, 1999. Within 60 days of the date of this letter, we would appreciate receiving a statement on actions taken to address our recommendations. We would like to thank AAC for the courtesy and cooperation extended to our audit team. We are sending copies of this report to Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Senator Fred Thompson, Senator Joseph Lieberman, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Representative C. W. Bill Young, Representative Lane Evans, III, Representative Bob Stump, Representative David Obey, Representative Dan Burton, and Representative Henry A. Waxman in their capacities as Chairmen or Ranking Minority Members of Senate and House Committees. We are also sending copies to Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, copies will be made available to others upon request. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3317. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. David W. Irvin, Assistant Director Debra M. Conner, Senior EDP Auditor Shannon Q. Cross, Senior Evaluator Charles M. Vrabel, Senior EDP Auditor 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 legislative requirement, GAO assessed the effectiveness of information system general controls at the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Austin Automation Center (AAC). GAO noted that: (1) AAC had made substantial progress in correcting specific computer security weaknesses that GAO identified in its previous evaluation of information system controls; (2) AAC had established a solid foundation for its computer security planning and management program by creating a centralized computer security group, developing a comprehensive security policy, and promoting security awareness; (3) however, AAC had not yet established a framework for continually assessing risks and routinely monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of information system controls; (4) GAO also identified additional computer security weaknesses that increased the risk of inadvertent or deliberate misuse, fraudulent use, improper disclosure, and destruction of financial and sensitive veteran medical and benefit information on AAC systems; (5) an effective computer security planning and management program would have allowed AAC to identify and correct the types of additional weaknesses that GAO identified; (6) in addition, AAC continues to run the risk that unauthorized access may not be detected because it had not established a program to identify and investigate unusual or suspicious patterns of successful access to sensitive data and resources; (7) these weaknesses could also affect other agencies that depend on AAC information technology services; (8) AAC was very responsive to addressing new security exposures identified and corrected several weaknesses before GAO's fieldwork was completed; (9) the Acting Assistant Secretary for Information Technology said VA would implement all of GAO's recommendations by September 30, 1999; and (10) addressing the remaining issues will help ensure that an effective computer security environment is achieved and maintained. |
Top senators in both parties have begun talks to revise the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to lawmakers and aides involved in the discussions.
Though in its early stages, such a debate could cause serious heartburn for the White House and party leaders seeking to push through any revised use-of-force resolution. A Senate floor fight over replacing the 9/11 resolution could lead to broader political battles on critical areas of President Barack Obama’s national security policy, including the war in Afghanistan, the use of armed drone attacks against suspected terrorists, treatment of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, and the scope of the president’s authority as commander-in-chief to combat terrorism worldwide.
Text Size -
+
reset
The bipartisan Senate talks also come at a time when Obama is catching flak for his aggressive drone policy, and Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) 13-hour filibuster on the issue struck a chord with some members of both parties.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.), and Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) met recently to discuss the issue, the senators and their aides said.
Other senators involved in the talks include Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Corker is the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Levin has scheduled a May 16 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the matter.
Levin, who has already announced his retirement at the end of this Congress, was tight-lipped when approached on Monday about his upcoming hearing and his discussions with Durbin and McCain.
“The whole issue is a very complex issue,” Levin said. “It’s the complexity of the issue that needs to be dealt with.”
At stake is whether the 9/11 resolution is still relevant more than 12 years after it was adopted by Congress in the wake of the attacks by al Qaeda terrorists on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Those attacks prompted an American-led invasion of Afghanistan, a military campaign that is still ongoing and could last for years longer, even after U.S. combat forces leave the troubled country in 2014.
“We need to sit down among ourselves as senators and ask a very timely question. And that is whether the AUMF [authorization of use of military force] that we voted for in 2001 — every senator did who was serving at the time — whether that still serves America’s defense needs today,” Durbin told POLITICO in an interview.
Durbin is the number two Senate Democrat, as well as chairman of the powerful Defense Appropriations subcommittee.
Durbin added: “None of us, not one who voted for it, could have envisioned we were voting for the longest war in American history or that we were about to give future presidents the authority to fight terrorism as far flung as Yemen and Somalia. I don’t think any of us envisioned that possibility.” ||||| Sunrise was still nearly an hour off when Nazih al-Ruqai climbed into his black Hyundai SUV outside a mosque in northern Tripoli and turned the key. The lanky 49-year-old had left the house barely 30 minutes earlier for a quick trip to the mosque on a Saturday. It was Oct. 5, 2013, and after more than two decades in exile, he had settled into a predictable existence of prayer and worship.
The homecoming hadn’t always been so smooth. Ruqai, who is better known in the jihadi world as Abu Anas al-Libi, was still feeling the effects of the hepatitis C he had contracted years earlier during a stint in an underground prison in Iran. Following overtures from Muammar al-Qaddafi’s government, his wife and children had returned to Libya in 2010. But Libi stayed away, wary of the man he had once plotted to kill. Only when the Libyan uprisings started in early 2011 did he follow his family back to Libya. But by then it was already too late. His oldest son, Abd al-Rahman, the only one of his five children who had been born in Libya, was dead, shot while fighting for the capital.
After that, things moved in fits and starts. Qaddafi was killed weeks later in October 2011, and Libi eventually settled in Nufalayn, a leafy middle-class neighborhood in northeast Tripoli, alongside several members of his extended family. Life after Qaddafi was chaotic and messy — nothing really worked as the new government struggled to reboot after 42 years of dictatorship, often finding itself at the mercy of the heavily armed militias and tribes that had contributed to Qaddafi’s downfall.
Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, known by his alias Abu Anas al-Libi, an al-Qaeda leader connected to the 1998 embassy bombings in eastern Africa. FBI / AP Photo
Libi knew he was a wanted man. He had been on the FBI’s most wanted list for more than a decade, following an indictment in 2000 for his alleged role in al-Qaeda’s attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania two years earlier. Along with Libi the indictment named 20 other individuals, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, as defendants.
“He suspected that at any moment he would be killed,” his son later told The New York Times. Still, on that Saturday morning in early October, much of the danger seemed to have passed. Libi had been living in the open for nearly a year, attending prayers and settling local disputes, where his history as a fighter and knowledge of the Qur’an made him a respected arbiter. Neighbors called him simply “the shaykh,” a sign of respect in the conservative circles in which Libi still moved.
He had also taken steps to address his past. Three weeks earlier, on Sept. 15, Libi had sat down with Libya’s attorney general to discuss his indictment, according to one report. (The Libyan Embassy in Washington did not respond to repeated requests to confirm Libi’s meeting.) But mostly he just wanted to move on with his life. He had applied for his old job at the Ministry of Oil and Gas and he couldn’t stop talking about how much he was looking forward to becoming a grandfather for the first time.
A trio of cars around 6 a.m. ended all of that.
Inside the family’s apartment, Libi’s wife heard the commotion. From a window she looked out over the beige wall that surrounded their building and into the street where several men had surrounded her husband, who was still in the driver’s seat of his black Hyundai.
“Get out,” the men shouted in Arabic. “Get out.” Then they smashed the window. Most of the men were masked, but she could see a few faces, she said later in Arabic interviews. They looked Libyan; they sounded Libyan. Some of them had guns; some didn’t, but they all moved quickly.
By the time the rest of the family made it to the street, all that was left was a single sandal and a few drops of blood.
Early that same morning, nearly 3,000 miles away in the seaside city of Baraawe on Somalia’s eastern coast, U.S. Navy SEALs crept through the darkness toward their target, which a local resident later described to me as a walled compound more than 100 yards inland. The Americans had been here before. Four years earlier, in September 2009, a contingent of Navy SEALs had ambushed a two-car convoy just outside of town. Flying low in helicopter gunships, the SEALs quickly disabled the cars and then touched down to collect the bodies.
This time the target — Abd al-Qadir Muhammad Abd al-Qadir, a young Kenyan of Somali descent better known as Ikrima — was stationary. The SEALs would have to go in and get him. Pre-raid intelligence suggested that the compound housed mostly fighters with few or no civilians present. Only 130 miles south of Mogadishu and what passed for the Somali government, Baraawe had been under the control of al-Shabaab, a fragmentary militant group, since 2009. Fighters came and went freely, as al-Shabaab implemented its own narrow version of Islamic law in the city.
Abdulkadir Mohamed Abdulkadir, aka Ikrima.
Moving up the beach and into enemy territory, the SEALs needed the element of surprise. Through the trees and scrub brush ahead of them, most of the city was dark. Baraawe had only a few hours of electricity each day, usually from evening prayers until midnight. But al-Shabaab’s members lived separately and, along with some of the city’s wealthier residents, got around the shortages by running private generators. The plan that night took this into account, calling for the SEALs to jam internet signals, apparently in an attempt to cut off communication once the raid began. That would prove to be a mistake.
Inside the compound, some of the al-Shabaab fighters were up late and online. And, according to a report in the Toronto Star, when the internet suddenly went out in the middle of the night, they went to look for the source of the problem. At least one fighter stepped outside, and as he moved around in the darkness he spotted some of the SEALs.
The plan to knock the internet offline and isolate the fighters in the villa had backfired, effectively giving al-Shabaab an early warning that the SEALs were on their way. (In the days after the raid, al-Shabaab would arrest a handful of local men who were known to visit Western websites, accusing them of spying and aiding U.S. efforts.)
The firefight lasted several minutes, although residents reported hearing gunfire throughout the night as members of al-Shabaab discharged their weapons into the dark for hours after the Americans had withdrawn, empty-handed.
In the span of a few hours, the U.S. had launched a pair of raids — one successful and one not — 3,000 miles apart, in countries with which the nation was not at war. Hardly anyone noticed.
More than a dozen years after the Sept. 11 attacks, this is what America’s war looks like, silent strikes and shadowy raids. The Congressional Research Service, an analytical branch of the Library of Congress, recently said that it had located at least 30 similar occurrences, although the number of covert actions is likely many times higher with drones strikes and other secret operations. The remarkable has become regular.
The White House said that the operations in both Libya and Somalia drew their authority from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, a 12-year-old piece of legislation that was drafted in the hours after the Sept. 11 attacks. At the heart of the AUMF is a single 60-word sentence, which has formed the legal foundation for nearly every counterterrorism operation the U.S. has conducted since Sept. 11, from Guantanamo Bay and drone strikes to secret renditions and SEAL raids. Everything rests on those 60 words.
Unbound by time and unlimited by geography, the sentence has been stretched and expanded over the past decade, sprouting new meanings and interpretations as two successive administrations have each attempted to keep pace with an evolving threat while simultaneously maintaining the security of the homeland. In the process, what was initially thought to authorize force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan has now been used to justify operations in several countries across multiple continents and, at least theoretically, could allow the president — any president — to strike anywhere at anytime. What was written in a few days of fear has now come to govern years of action.
Culled from interviews with former and current members of Congress, as well as staffers and attorneys who served in both the Bush and the Obama administrations, this is the story of how those 60 words came to be, the lone objector to their implementation, and their continuing power in the world today. The story, like most modern ones of America at war, begins in the shadow of 9/11 with a lawyer and Word document.
Just over 24 hours after United Flight 175 flew into the south tower at 9:03 in the morning on Sept. 11, Alberto Gonzalez, the White House counsel, called one of his deputies into his office.
The U.S. still didn’t know for certain who was behind the attacks or how many people had been killed. The CIA thought it might be Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network, and early casualty reports put the death toll at more than 5,000. Only one of those things would turn out to be true. But on that first day the only thing anyone knew for certain was that the U.S. had been attacked and that it had to respond.
Gonzales gave a key part of that task to Timothy Flanigan, a graying, slightly paunchy 48-year-old lawyer with a background in corporate law.
Gonzales wanted his deputy to draft the congressional resolution that would authorize the president to go after those responsible. Flanigan listened to the instructions, but he was out of his element. He had clerked for Warren Burger during the chief justice’s final years on the Supreme Court in 1985 and 1986, but most of those cases focused on things like antitrust laws and regulating adult bookstores, not national security and war. Still, he at least knew where to start. While the U.S. had never been attacked like this before, Congress had a long history of authorizing the use of force. What he needed was a precedent.
After a quick search online, Flanigan located the last time Congress had given the president permission to act: the 1991 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq. Then, according to an account in Kurt Eichenwald’s best-selling 2012 book 500 Days, he copied and pasted the text of that resolution into a new document.
Next Flanigan called David Addington, a gruff, standoffish man in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. Addington had started his career as a lawyer in the CIA and he had a better sense of the issues at stake. So too did John Yoo, a 34-year-old law professor from Berkeley, Calif., whose innovative legal arguments in Bush v. Gore a year earlier had secured him a place in the Bush White House. Together the three men hammered out a first draft of the resolution, which they faxed to congressional leaders that evening.
Almost no one liked Flanigan’s initial offering. Everyone was working long hours and fighter jets were still patrolling the skies over Washington, but Congress wasn’t ready to give President George W. Bush a blank check to go after an ill-defined enemy no one knew anything about.
At a Democratic caucus in the basement of the Capitol building, several members complained that the wording was too broad. Republicans were similarly concerned. One part of Flanigan’s draft authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” both in the United States as well as abroad. What exactly did that mean? officials wondered. Could President Bush use the military domestically? What about the CIA? No one seemed to know.
Flanigan and Yoo spent much of Thursday, Sept. 13, walking scared and sleep-deprived congressional staffers through the brief text. At one of the meetings in the Roosevelt Room, tempers started to fray as Flanigan and Yoo dug in to defend their work. The day before, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle had warned President Bush to be careful with his rhetoric, particularly his use of the word “war.” And now his staff was driving home a similar point. Mostly they wanted to make sure that the resolution adhered to the War Powers Resolution language, which Congress had passed in the wake of the Vietnam War as a way of checking the president’s ability to unilaterally wage war.
Crammed around a long wooden table with a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt as Rough Rider looking down on them, the two sides got to work. Deep into the meeting, one of Sen. Patrick Leahy’s aides returned to the War Powers language, which had already been debated and tabled several times. This was a deal breaker, she said.
Nothing had been settled. The two sides were going in circles. From around the table the frustration was palpable. Finally, House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s chief of staff, Scott Palmer, spoke up. “We don’t have time for this,” he blurted out from his seat in the back.
The 50-year-old Palmer saw his role in the meeting as a mediator and a prodder. His boss was second in the order of presidential succession, and he was convinced the U.S. was about to be hit again. The discussion in the Roosevelt Room was getting bogged down in legislative minutiae when the country needed action.
Let’s have a seminar on this next month, Palmer thought as he laid into Leahy’s aide. Part of the edge in his voice was due to his belief that it was exactly this type of narrow thinking that had led to the intelligence wall in the years leading up to the attack. But right now their job wasn’t to litigate past mistakes, it was to give the president the latitude he needed to go after the people responsible.
Palmer’s outburst got the meeting moving again, and when it broke up, a White House official wandered over. “Thanks for popping off,” he told Palmer. “We could have been here all night.”
By late that evening the White House and Congress had something resembling a working draft. They had even found a compromise to one of the more vexing phrases, which would have given the president the authority “to deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.”
Congressional lawyers had pointed out that the clause would give the president unprecedented power, allowing him to strike anyone anywhere in the world at any time. One even argued that given the potential activities that could be crammed into the word “aggression,” the president might never again have to seek congressional authorization to combat terrorism. He could simply target anyone he considered a threat and say he was preempting terrorism. Did Congress really want to give the president such open-ended and wide-ranging power?
Flanigan and Yoo agreed to remove the clause on the condition that they place similar language in the “whereas” section of the resolution. Convinced this was the best they could get and comforted by the fact that the whereas section carried no legal weight — it existed only to provide the context for the resolution — Daschle and the rest of the Democratic negotiators agreed to the deal.
They brought the revised draft — five whereas clauses, the 60-word body, and a War Powers section — back to the Capitol basement for the second Democratic caucus of the day. Hours earlier, a bomb threat had forced the Capitol to close for 45 minutes as security swept the building. Milling about on the grass outside the Capitol in suits and shoes designed for hallways and offices, the members tried to maintain their composure, but the long days and stress were starting to take a toll. Like the rest of the country, they wanted to hit back.
“I say bomb the hell out of them,” Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia had told The New York Times a day earlier. “If there’s collateral damage, so be it. They certainly found our civilians to be expendable.”
Not everyone was so sure. Barbara Lee, a 55-year-old congresswoman with short black hair and the worn-through voice of a lifelong activist, had stayed silent during the first caucus. There had been enough people talking, and as a second-term congresswoman from the liberal California San Francisco Bay Area, she was still relatively junior. But now, as support for the resolution seemed to be gaining momentum, she decided it was time to speak up.
Lee knew what she was about to say would be unpopular, but she had been unpopular before. As a child growing up in El Paso, Texas, during the 1950s, her mother sent her to Catholic school instead of segregated public schools, and later as a high school student in California she broke the color barrier to become the first black cheerleader at her high school.
“This is still a blank check,” she said when it came her turn to speak. The faces staring back at her looked somber and reflective, but Lee could sense the undercurrent of anger running through the room.
“Let’s take a step back,” she begged. “We don’t know what the implications of our actions will be.” A few heads had started to nod along with her, and as Lee sat down, several other members stood up to voice concerns about the dangers inherent in such a broad resolution.
By the end of the meeting, it was clear that this was the resolution, a single sentence and 60 words:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
That was it. After more than a day of negotiations between the White House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, this is what had emerged. Congress could take it or leave it. There would be no going back to the drawing board.
Lee spent much of the night on the phone. Congress was moving forward with the resolution. The only question that remained was how she would vote. She needed to get a sense of what her district back in California was thinking, and she wanted to talk.
“I can’t believe this,” she kept saying into the phone. “Am I missing something?” None of her friends had an answer. They could tell her what they were hearing in California and list what they saw as the pros and cons of different votes. But that was it. No one wanted to give advice.
It was her vote, and it would have to be her decision.
The Senate moved first. Early on Friday morning, Minority Leader Trent Lott came to Daschle with a request. The Republicans in his ranks were getting restless. The White House was telling congressional allies that the resolution was ready, and with the attacks already three days in the past, Lott’s members were tired of waiting. They wanted action.
If Daschle wanted the Senate to speak with one voice, he needed to call a vote. Otherwise, Lott told him, some Republicans might start to move on their own. Typically, voting on something like this started in the House before moving to the Senate and then to the president, but typically the House would have taken the lead in drafting the resolution. The protocol was already out of order. Daschle agreed with Lott’s assessment, and when the Senate was gaveled back into session at 10:16 on Friday morning, he was ready with the resolution.
“Let me say, before I do read this request,” Daschle said as he fiddled with his reading glasses, “how much I appreciate, once again, the leadership of our Republican leader.” Glancing across the aisle to where Lott stood in the mostly empty chamber, Daschle continued: “As he has throughout the week, he has been remarkable. We could not be where we are today, this country or this institution, without the strong partnership and leadership he has shown.”
The White House had organized a prayer service at the National Cathedral for noon, and in an effort to save time, Daschle asked the senators to vote from their desks. Friday had turned into a dreary, rainy day, and they still had a nearly 15-minute drive uptown.
“We want to get on the buses just as quickly as possible after this vote,” Daschle told his colleagues. “They will be right down in front of the steps.”
Carl Levin, a portly 67-year-old senator from Michigan with boxy glasses perched low on his nose, addressed the floor. “This authorization for the use of force is limited to the nations, organizations, or persons involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11,” he said. “It is not a broad authorization for the use of military force against any nation, organization, or person who were not involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.”
Later that day, Levin’s Democratic colleague, Joe Biden, seconded his interpretation of what the Senate had passed to The New York Times. The current resolution, Biden claimed, was nothing like the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which had been used to justify military escalation in Vietnam for nearly seven years until it was repealed in 1971.
The Senate, Biden and senior Democrats like John Kerry suggested, had learned its lesson. No one wanted another Vietnam. That, after all, is why they had insisted that Flanigan and Yoo add the War Powers language. But in the rush to draft and pass the resolution, no one had managed to insert a sunset option — a time limit on the use of force. The legal authority Congress was giving to the president would last until Congress took it back. There was no end date, just a vague sentence and the broad authority to “use all necessary and appropriate force.”
On Sept. 14, 2001, no one was thinking about how the war would eventually end, only that it needed to begin.
Just as Daschle had hoped, the voting was over in minutes. Each of the 98 senators present voted in favor of the resolution, and Jesse Helms, who had been stuck in traffic for much of the morning, later took to the Senate floor to tell his colleagues he would have voted yea. Only Larry Craig of Idaho, who years later garnered further national ignominy, failed to vote or explain his absence.
After speaking at the service for America’s National Day of Prayer and Remembrance, U.S. President George W. Bush grasps the hand of his father, former President George H.W. Bush, Sept. 14, 2001, at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. Eric Draper/White House / Getty Images
On the other side of the building, in the Democratic cloakroom, Lee was still wrestling with her vote. She had already decided to pass on the memorial service. The House was scheduled to vote on the resolution on Saturday and she wanted to spend most of Friday making calls and thinking about what to do.
As everyone else was gathering to get on the bus, Lee sipped from a can of ginger ale and chatted with Elijah Cummings, a close colleague from Maryland. “Are you going?” Cummings asked.
“Well,” Lee hesitated. “I think I’m going to stick around.” But as she spoke, Lee could feel something inside her shift. She couldn’t explain it to Cummings then, or even to herself later. She just knew she needed to go. She needed to be present.
“You know what?” Lee interrupted. “I’m going.” Then she turned and walked out of the cloakroom still clutching the ginger ale as she moved down the steps, through the rain, and onto the bus.
Inside the neo-Gothic cathedral on Wisconsin Avenue, Lee found a seat in the left several rows behind the cluster of former presidents who had gathered in the front. For the next 30 minutes, as the church slowly started to fill, she sat silently listening to the organ and praying. Around her, a few people were already crying and several were whispering softly, a faint rustle that could be heard between hymns.
Rev. Jane Holmes Dixon opened the service with a short reading and a prayer. The next speaker, Nathan Baxter, a third-generation priest and dean of the cathedral, held to a similar script, reading from Jeremiah 31:15: “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamenting and bitter weeping, Rachel is weeping for her children and she refuses to be comforted because they are no more.”
The tall African-American priest paused briefly to look out across the darkened cathedral as he moved from Jeremiah’s words to his own. “Now let us seek that assurance in prayer,” he said in a slow, deliberate baritone. “That as we act we not become the evil we deplore.”
That’s it, Lee thought from her seat. For much of the past 24 hours, she had been looking for a reason to vote no. In her heart she knew that was the right vote, but she hadn’t been able to articulate why. Baxter’s words did it for her: “As we act, let us not become the evil we deplore.”
She was as angry and heartbroken as anyone else. Her chief of staff had lost a cousin when Flight 93 went down in Pennsylvania. But she wanted a measured response, not a blank check for a perpetual war. Something else was bothering her as well. Several of the speakers seemed to be more focused on retaliation than remembering the dead.
This is supposed to be a memorial service, Lee thought. Not a rush-to-war service.
Part of the tone was deliberate. President Bush and his advisers had wanted to strike a note of defiance. In his own remarks, Bush gave voice to the attitude that would come to define his administration. “Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history,” he said from the cathedral’s lectern. “But our responsibility to history is already clear: To answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.”
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
As Bush stepped down, everyone else stood. The marble and stone echoed as the congregation sang “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”:
Late that afternoon, Lee received a phone call in her office. The vote that had been scheduled for Saturday had been moved up. The hours of prep time she had been counting on to get the language of her floor statement just right were gone. If she wanted to speak, she needed to get to the floor.
On the House Committee for International Relations, Stephen Rademaker, the committee’s chief counsel, received a similar message. Under normal circumstances, Rademaker, a tall, thin lawyer with the loose frame of a long-distance runner, would have taken the lead in drafting the resolution, as his committee typically had jurisdiction for the authorization of the use of military force. But the White House was in charge of the writing, and Rademaker was a spectator.
Stephen Rademaker. Julie Jacobson / AP Photo
Even though Rademaker’s legal skills hadn’t been utilized in drafting the resolution, he knew it would be a historic vote. The Republican immediately thought of his eldest son, Andrew, a high school freshman across the river in Virginia. “You should come in for this,” Rademaker told his son when he got him on the phone that afternoon.
The fall cross-country running season had just started, but with after-school activities still canceled because of the attacks, Andrew was looking for something to do. “Sure,” he told his dad. “I’ll come in after school today.”
“No hurry,” Rademaker replied. “This thing could take a while.”
On the House floor, Lee was hastily scribbling her floor speech on loose notebook paper. She dashed off a quick paragraph and started on a second before hesitating and scratching out half a line. Lee wrote for a few more minutes, pausing here and there to draw a line through something in the cramped cursive she didn’t like. She filled two pages with notes and then added a single line on a third sheet. She was ready.
At 5:45 on Friday afternoon, the House was called to order. One of Lee’s close friends, Eleanor Holmes Norton, a petite 64-year-old member of the black caucus from the District of Columbia, spoke early in the debate.
“The language before us is limited only by the slim anchor of its Sept. 11 reference, but allows war against any and all prospective persons and entities,” Norton warned. “The point is to give the president the authority to do what he has to do, not whatever he wants to do.”
But for all of Norton’s worries about a “slim anchor” and that the text could be stretched to go after those who had nothing to with the attacks, she still said she supported the resolution to authorize the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force.”
Barbara Lee, the one representative to vote against the AUMF. CSPAN
Lee came to the podium seven minutes later. “I rise today, really, with a very heavy heart,” she said as emotion cracked her voice. Then, from the well of the U.S. House of Representatives, she started to cry. The mother of two boys, who had agonized and prayed over her vote, Lee jostled the microphone and tugged nervously at the lapels of her jacket as she struggled to regain control. A pair of deep breaths helped.
“However difficult this vote may be,” she said, her voice steady once more, “some of us must urge the use of restraint. Our country is in a state of mourning. Some of us must say, ‘Let’s step back for a moment, let’s just pause, just for a minute, and think through the implications of our actions today so that this does not spiral out of control.’” Lee closed her brief remarks with Baxter’s line, the one that had convinced her to vote her heart. “As we act,” she said. “Let us not become the evil we deplore.”
In the cloakroom after her statement, several of Lee’s friends came up to her and begged her to reconsider. “You’re doing so much on HIV and AIDS that is going to drop if you aren’t here,” one implored. “Don’t let this one vote take you out.”
Fourteen-year-old Andrew Rademaker watched the House debate from the balcony overlooking the floor. He had taken his father’s advice and waited to have dinner before riding the subway into D.C. The enhanced security measures that would come to define post-9/11 America had yet to be installed, and he passed through a single metal detector and walked straight up to the House gallery. It would be the last time he’d ever enter the Capitol so easily.
Below him, the House debate stretched on for hours as representatives waited their turn to publicly declare their support for the use of force. Some wanted to declare war — a suggestion that had been dismissed days earlier when no one could figure out whom to declare war on — and some wanted to root out terrorism wherever it existed, but everyone supported the use of force.
Lee was on her way back to her office when the final vote was announced: 420-1. The nods of affirmation she had seen in the Capitol basement the night before had disappeared on the House floor. And Lee’s “some” had become one. Out of 535 elected officials in Congress, she was the only one to vote no.
Almost immediately her phone started to ring. “I knew it was you,” the mother-in-law of Lee’s oldest son said. She had been watching CNN when the cable network broke in with the news that the House had just passed the AUMF 420-1. “I knew you were the one.”
Lee’s father, a retired lieutenant colonel who had fought in World War II and Korea, called her soon after. “I’m proud of you,” he said.
Lee hadn’t reached out to close family the night before during her flurry of phone calls, worried that they would try to convince her not to oppose the resolution. That her father said he supported her both as a parent and as a former military officer meant a lot. She would remember his words often in the weeks to come, a comforting message amid the thousands of death threats and angry phone calls that flooded her office.
Andrew Rademaker found his father after the vote. The Transportation Committee was debating an emergency appropriations bill, and Andrew wanted to stay and watch. For the next few hours, exhausted members of the committee fought and argued over billions of dollars that some worried might be needed to save the airline industry from immediate collapse.
Finally, shortly after midnight, the debate was tabled. On the way out of the chamber, Rademaker, who was still in lawyer mode, started to explain to his son everything they had seen that night: the vote to authorize the use of military force and the appropriations debate. The morning rain had tapered off, and there was hardly any late-night traffic as the two drove over the bridge into Virginia.
From the driver’s seat, Rademaker saw the Pentagon come into view, leaking tendrils of smoke up into the sky. Slowing down on a whim, he pulled up next to Arlington National Cemetery, parking the car on a little hill that looked back into Washington. Rademaker gave up on his explanation of House procedures and what the vote meant for the country. There was nothing left to say. Together with his son, he stepped out of the car and stared down the slope into the hole in the Pentagon. Smoke, wreckage, and a giant American flag.
On Sept. 18, 2001, President Bush signed the joint resolution authorizing him to use “all necessary and appropriate force” into law.
One week later, on Sept. 25, John Yoo wrote Timothy Flanigan a memo. Yoo wanted to reestablish the preemption language Daschle and Congress had forced them to move to the whereas section during the negotiations, effectively stripping it of its legal weight. Yoo’s memo, less than two weeks later, made an end run around Daschle’s block and once again gave the idea of preemption legal cover.
“The President,” Yoo wrote, “may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist attack of September 11.”
In the pages of dense, legal prose that followed, Yoo acknowledged that while the AUMF is limited only to enemies connected to the Sept. 11 attacks, the president actually had greater freedom of action based on his powers as commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution.
Robert Chesney, a professor and expert on national security law at the University of Texas, described this idea to me as the “belt and suspenders approach” — a redundancy that allowed for greater flexibility. When the AUMF proved too narrow, the Bush administration relied on its own expansive reading of the president’s Article II authority.
For Yoo, this meant that the president could “take whatever actions he deems appropriate” when it came to combating terrorism. He could kill whomever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants. At its most basic level, John Yoo’s legal analysis restated Richard Nixon’s famous line that “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
For years, a small but outspoken group of legal scholars and outside experts had pushed back against Yoo’s idea of an unchecked executive. They argued at conferences and wrote op-eds, but they had little real power and no ability to effect change. Finally, toward the end of Bush’s second term, they saw an opportunity to influence policy and help steer the next administration. On Sept. 15, 2008 — almost seven years to the day that the AUMF had been passed — one of those scholars boarded an Amtrak train in New Haven, Conn., for the nearly five-and-a-half-hour trip to Washington, D.C.
Harold Koh testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, June 28, 2011. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
The next day, Harold Koh, a short, intense man with jet-black hair that draped down the right side of his forehead, took his seat at the witness table in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The 53-year-old dean of the Yale Law School had a reputation as a brilliant if grating opponent, often appearing more eager to humiliate those who disagreed with him than simply disproving them. In front of the committee, he was characteristically outspoken, calling the AUMF a “broadly worded law” that the Bush administration had used “to justify National Security Agency surveillance, indefinite detentions, and torture of foreign detainees.”
But in late 2008, with the presidential elections less than two months away, Koh was eager to give advice. He couched his remarks carefully, but as a former assistant secretary of state under Bill Clinton, it was clear that he favored Barack Obama over John McCain. The next administration, Koh said, should be very careful not to “construe the vaguely worded Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) Resolution to override existing legislation.” Already the AUMF had been in effect longer than the Vietnam-era Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and there was no end in sight.
Toward the end of his prepared remarks, Koh laid out what he saw as the key issue moving forward. “As difficult as the last seven years have been, they loom far less important in the grand scheme of things than the next eight, which will determine whether the pendulum of U.S. policy swings back from the extreme place to which it has been pushed, or stays stuck in the ‘new normal’ position.”
Two days after Barack Obama took the oath of office on the balcony of the U.S. Capitol building, he put Koh’s advice into action. In his testimony, Koh had recommended that “as soon as the new president takes office he should issue executive orders,” including one to close Guantanamo Bay by a certain date.
Sitting in the Oval Office, on Jan. 22, 2009, President Obama did just that. He signed a pair of executive orders announcing his intention to close Guantanamo within a year and setting up a task force to review current cases against the detainees.
President Obama signs an executive order to close down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay in the Oval Office on Jan. 22, 2009. Mark Wilson / Getty Images
The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is one of the best examples of the unanticipated power of the 60 words at the heart of the AUMF. Like a science experiment gone wrong, the words of that sentence have mutated and changed over the years, sprouting new meanings and interpretations that were never anticipated when Timothy Flanigan cut and pasted the text back on Sept. 12, 2001.
In June 2004, more than two years after Bush established Guantanamo, the Supreme Court decided in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that since Congress had given the president the power to kill, it must also have, at least implicitly, granted the president the power to capture and detain.
Congress built on the court’s expansion by endorsing another one two years later. In 2006, Congress said that military commissions had jurisdiction over al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and what had come to be called “associated forces,” a broad category of enemies who had allied themselves with either al-Qaeda or the Taliban.
Eleanor Norton’s “slim anchor,” which held the language of the law to those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, had finally broken loose. The AUMF had ceased to be a scalpel. Now it was broadsword that could be used against a wide variety of groups, many of which had not even existed in 2001. The fact that the 60 words made no mention of detention authority or associated forces no longer mattered. The sentence stayed the same, only the meaning had changed.
By the end of the Bush administration, even some officials who had initially been in favor of a broad reading of the authority enshrined in the AUMF began to grow wary of building so much of U.S. counterterrorism strategy on such a shaky foundation.
“It is like a Christmas tree,” John Bellinger III told me recently. “All sorts of things have been hung off of those 60 words.”
Bellinger, who worked closely with Condoleezza Rice first on the National Security Council and then at the State Department, favored revising and updating the AUMF instead of simply repealing it, a drastic measure he considered dangerous. In 2010, he wrote a piece in the Washington Post arguing the Bush administration had never sought to update the AUMF because it “did not want to work with the legislative branch.”
Obama was supposed to change all that. He was the president of hope and change, the man who would restore America’s reputation and once again restore a healthy respect for the rule of law.
The day after his inauguration, the The New York Times’ editorial page crowed that it took Obama “less than 12 hours” to order a halt to the military tribunals at Guantanamo. It turns out, the paper said, that closing Guantanamo wasn’t actually “so hard.” All it took was a president with the courage of his convictions, someone who was willing to do what was right.
Inside the new administration, things looked a little different. President Obama had halted the tribunals and ordered Guantanamo Bay closed, but then the new president moved on leaving his aides and appointees to sort out the details. None of them really knew exactly what their boss wanted. And when they asked the White House for direction, their queries went unanswered.
“It was really a dysfunctional process,” one former government official involved told me. “There was a lack of leadership and engagement from the White House. It was a wasted year’s work — a lot of open-ended discussions and few decisions.”
Obama was also on deadline. An Algerian detainee at Guantanamo was challenging his detention, and John Bates, a district court judge in D.C., had given the new administration until March 13 to respond. Who exactly, the judge asked in essence, was the U.S. at war with? None of Obama’s lawyers felt like they had enough time, but the judge had already given them one extension and they needed an answer. What they came up with was a 93-word definition that attempted to articulate many of the expansions that had taken place in the eight years since the AUMF was passed.
During that time, the list of enemies had grown significantly. In addition to those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks — al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan — the U.S. was now effectively at war with the broader, catchall category of “associated forces.” Government lawyers also claimed that the U.S. could detain — which given legal logic meant that the U.S. could also target for killing — anyone who “substantially supported” any of the three categories of enemies, although they failed to clarify exactly what constituted substantial support. The U.S. could also go after anyone who carried out an attack against a “coalition partner,” as well as “any person who committed a belligerent act,” which they also neglected to define. Eight years into the war and the enemies kept multiplying.
Judge Bates, a long-necked, willowy man who had been appointed to the bench by George W. Bush in the months after Sept. 11, pushed back on the government’s refusal to define either “associated forces” or “substantial support.” Both concepts drastically broadened the scope of the AUMF and who the U.S. could kill, and the judge wanted to know exactly what the government meant.
But, he wrote in his opinion, it had become clear to him that the government had no “definitive justification for the ‘substantial support’ concept in the law of war.” Bates said he was open to the idea of associated forces but this had to mean more than a “terrorist organization who merely share an abstract philosophy or even a common purpose with al-Qaeda — there must be an actual association in the current conflict with al-Qaeda or the Taliban.”
Obama’s speech on national security at the U.S. National Archives in Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009. Jim Watson / AFP / Getty Images
Bates issued his opinion on May 19, 2009. Two days later Barack Obama walked into the limestone and marble rotunda of the National Archives to address the nation. Standing beneath a pair of 1936 Barry Faulkner murals depicting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention, Obama pledged not to repeat the mistakes of the Bush administration.
“The last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable,” he said. “All too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight.” This, the president promised, would change on his watch.
To help him make this a reality, Obama asked Harold Koh, the Yale legal scholar, to join his administration as the legal adviser to the State Department. Koh’s new position brought him into direct conflict with another lawyer on Obama’s national security team. At 51, Jeh Johnson was a balding attorney who had been with Obama from the beginning.
During the Democratic primaries, Johnson had severed his ties with the Clinton family, who had given him his first high-profile government position, to join Obama’s campaign. The president never forgot the courage that took or the money Johnson brought in when Obama needed it the most. Even before Obama took the oath of office in January, he had tapped Johnson to be general counsel at the Defense Department.
From the time Koh arrived in Washington in late June, the two were at odds, both institutionally and temperamentally. Aggressive and often condescendingly brusque, Koh represented the more liberal State Department, which typically sought to make U.S. action more palatable to its international allies. Johnson had a more chameleon-like quality that led him to adopt the mind-set of those he represented, which in this case was the conservative, security-first Department of Defense.
Along with several other officials, throughout the summer and fall of 2009, the two clashed on nearly every aspect of U.S. national security law, with Koh consistently staking out the liberal position and Johnson the more conservative counterargument. No one ever quite came right out and said it, but everyone seemed to realize that they were fighting for the nature of Obama’s presidency. How should a Democratic president combat al-Qaeda? Who could he kill and whom could he capture? Was there a difference between the two, or should he be able to kill anyone he could legally detain? And, most importantly of all: What did it mean for a democracy to be in a multigenerational war with a terrorist group?
This was Koh’s attempt to push the pendulum of the Bush years back. Johnson wanted to push it back as well, just not nearly so far. Both agreed that the U.S. could go after al-Qaeda’s “associated forces,” but what about associates of associates? How much of a connection did the target need to have to Sept. 11 to be legal? After all, the AUMF was explicit in authorizing force only against those who were responsible for the attacks. The Sept. 11 attacks had been planned and carried out by, at most, a few dozen men, and now, in years of strikes around the world, the U.S. had killed thousands. How big should the circle of responsibility be?
The decisions made in these D.C. conference rooms often made the difference between life and death half a world away, and despite anonymous claims from government officials, both lawyers knew that innocent people were sometimes killed. Not as many as activists might claim, but still too many to maintain a clean conscience.
Besides, they were unelected officials making decisions about whom the U.S. should kill. Over the years since Sept. 11, Congress had acquiesced, mostly in silence, to the gradual expansion of the AUMF. Neither chamber had ever explicitly revisited the power they had granted the president in the hours after the attacks, or even questioned how that authorization was being interpreted and used.
That hadn’t always been the case. During the height of the Vietnam War, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, J. William Fulbright, held a series of hard-hitting hearings in an effort to repeal the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and end the war. Like the AUMF, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution had passed with almost no opposition, unanimously in the House and against only two “no” votes in the Senate. Fulbright, who had initially helped sponsor the resolution, soon came to see it as an excuse for military expansion in a war the U.S. could never win.
John Kerry testifying before Congress in 1971 against the Vietnam War. c-spanvideo.org
In 1971, he succeeded in repealing the resolution and subsequently called a 27-year-old Vietnam veteran named John Kerry as a witness. Kerry was the first veteran to testify, and his dramatic two-hour testimony helped shape the debate over the war that followed.
Thirty-eight years later, Kerry found himself in a similar position, as one of Fulbright’s successors and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But unlike Fulbright, who used his position to harass the administration on its expanding war, Kerry was more administration envoy than adversary. As Andrew Cockburn wrote in a recent piece in Harper’s, as soon as Obama took office, “Kerry stopped rattling cages.” Of course, Fulbright went on to lose his next election, going down in the Democratic primary; Kerry went on to become Obama’s second secretary of state.
Part of the reason is that the wars themselves are different. Vietnam captivated the country in a way the war against al-Qaeda hasn’t, at least not since the initial bombing of Afghanistan in 2001. There is no longer a single battlefield, and no one seems to know what victory looks like. Perfect security, we are constantly told, isn’t possible, but how many people does the U.S. need to kill until it is safe enough?
Maybe it shouldn’t be so surprising that Congress didn’t think about how the war would end when it passed the AUMF on Sept. 14, 2001, but after more than a dozen years, we are no closer to an answer.
“This is a bizarro war,” Jack Goldsmith told me recently. A tenured law professor at Harvard who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel under George W. Bush, Goldsmith has written a pair of books on national security law. “What we don’t see, we don’t care about.”
And for most of us there is little to see. With the exception of Afghanistan, this is a war that is being fought out of sight with drones and small teams of special forces operatives. A war that is largely ignored at home has come to define us abroad.
The apathy lifted slightly in early 2010 when word leaked that the U.S. was actively targeting an American citizen for killing. The White House reacted to the increased scrutiny by rolling out Koh, the most liberal and publicly vocal critic of Bush-era policies, to make the case that Obama’s drone strikes were different. They were grounded in the AUMF and on solid legal footing.
Koh took to the podium at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington to address the American Society of International Law on March 25, 2010, in a conservative black suit and red tie. After a few jokes about the event being as close as most in the room would ever come to the Oscars and a red carpet, he got down to business.
Unlike the Bush administration, he said, which had relied on vague constitutional arguments about presidential power, the Obama administration had based its decisions “on legislative authority granted to the president by Congress in the 2001 AUMF.” Of course, he added, “construing what is ‘necessary and appropriate’ under the AUMF requires some translation.”
Gone was Koh the private scholar, who in 2008 had complained about the “vaguely worded” AUMF that had allowed the Bush administration to justify everything from NSA excesses to torture. Now, as a government lawyer, he rested the Obama administration’s legal edifice squarely on the foundation of the AUMF and those same 60 words. Everything the Obama administration did, he reassured the ballroom of legal colleagues and friends, “including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles,” was legal and just.
Koh wasn’t the only one whose opinion seemed to change with his job. A decade earlier, on Sept. 13, 2001, Denis McDonough had been a 31-year-old foreign policy advisor to Tom Daschle, working to limit the AUMF. Now McDonough was Obama’s deputy national security adviser and helping to preside over an expanding target list that rested on that very same piece of legislation he had once attempted to restrict.
While McDonough had aged, the targets had not. Many of the men the U.S. was killing were in their late teens and early twenties, men who had been boys on Sept. 11.
Months after Koh’s speech, in early 2011, Congress stirred briefly to life with some members suggesting that it might be time to start codifying the evolving interpretations of the AUMF. This, they argued, would put the U.S. on more solid legal ground. The AUMF, after all, governed both Guantanamo and drones and yet had made no mention of either. Surely, it would be better to make those authorities explicit.
Obama’s top aides pushed back immediately. This was not what the administration had in mind when it talked about repealing the AUMF and ending the war. Later that year at an event at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, Jeh Johnson explained why the administration had opposed any new legislation. “I think the reason that we in this administration have concerns about efforts to do that is because at the end of the political process, what I don’t want to end up with is something less than what we thought we already had by way of legal authorities through the authorities on the books and our interpretation of our authorities that are on the books.”
In other words, any attempt to update the AUMF, moving it from what was written in the hours after the 9/11 attacks to something that took into account the changes of a decade of war, might limit the president’s options. The Obama administration was happy to rely on a 2001 authorization to deal with a 2011 threat because its own internal interpretations gave it so much flexibility. If Congress started messing with the 60-word foundation, the administration’s whole legal edifice might come tumbling down.
What was supposed to be a rather routine Senate hearing early in Obama’s second term provided a glimpse into just how expansively the administration had been interpreting the sentence at the heart of the AUMF. On May 16, 2013, the Defense Department sent a quartet of officials to the Capitol to answer questions about the AUMF and the current state of the war against al-Qaeda. In the course of their joint testimony, Michael Sheehan and Robert Taylor, who were speaking for the four, both claimed that the 2001 AUMF and its 60 words were “adequate” for the administration’s needs.
Sheehan, a balding former counterterrorism official with the New York Police Department who looked like he had forgotten to shave that morning, spoke first. The administration, he told the senators, was “comfortable” with the AUMF as it was currently structured because it didn’t “inhibit us from prosecuting the war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates.”
Sen. John McCain was incredulous. Shuffling through some papers, the 76-year-old senator pulled out a copy of the AUMF and started reading. Twenty-four seconds later he finished the 60-word sentence, and then he started to lecture. “This authorization was about those who planned and orchestrated the attacks of September 2001,” McCain said, staring down toward the witness table. “Here we are, 12 years later, and you’re telling us that you don’t think it needs to be updated,” he continued. “Well, clearly it does.”
Other senators piled on. Angus King, a professorial-looking Independent senator who had hosted a public access television program called Maine Watch for 17 years in the 1970s and 1980s, told the four officials that this was “the most astoundingly disturbing hearing I’ve been to.”
“The AUMF is very limited, and you keep using the term ‘associated forces’ — you use it 13 times in your statement — that is not in the AUMF,” King said, before adding, “I assume [the AUMF] does suit you very well because you’re reading it to cover anything and everything.”
Toward the end of the panel, as the chairman was preparing to dismiss the Pentagon officials, Sheehan raised his hand. “Just one clarification,” he said. “Certainly the president has military personnel deployed all over the world today, in probably over 70 to 80 countries, and that authority is not always under AUMF.”
Sitting behind the witnesses, waiting his turn to testify, Jack Goldsmith, the former Bush administration lawyer, was shocked. Exactly how many of the 70 to 80 countries where military personnel are deployed fall under the AUMF? he asked the next day on Lawfare, a legal blog he co-founded. “The phrase ‘not always’ suggests a high number.”
“The hearing made clear that the Obama administration’s long insistence that it is deeply legally restrained under the AUMF is misleading and at a minimum requires much more extensive scrutiny,” Goldsmith wrote. Goldsmith’s post and Sheehan’s public evasions raised a key question: Twelve years after 9/11, who exactly is the U.S. at war with?
When I contacted the Pentagon to get an answer, a spokeswoman emailed back: “The list is classified and not for public release.”
One week later, on May 23, 2013, President Obama walked into the auditorium at the National Defense University in southeast Washington to deliver a major national security address. Sounding more like McCain than Sheehan, his own assistant secretary, Obama made a series of pledges.
“I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorism without keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing,” Obama said. “The AUMF is now nearly 12 years old. The Afghan war is coming to an end. Core al-Qaeda is a shell of its former self.”
Standing on a raised platform in front of the crowd, which included members of activist group Code Pink who would soon interrupt him, Obama continued. “I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,” he said. “But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”
But like his Guantanamo pledge five years earlier, this was more rhetoric than reality. In the more than seven months since Obama gave that speech, the White House has taken no public steps to roll back the AUMF. From the outside, the string of unfilled promises looked like a president who wants to end the war without giving up his powers to wage war. It’s easy to see why.
The 12-year-old sentence gives the president both incredible power — power that has been blessed by Congress and the courts — as well as maximum flexibility. Read inventively enough, the AUMF permits a wide range of military activities, all of which might at some point be necessary. Repealing or refining those 60 words would only tie the president’s hands and limit his options. It would also force him to reengage with Congress, which helped block him on Guantanamo, and to explain to the American people what the U.S. is doing and who it is fighting.
Then there is the issue of Afghanistan: the war Obama once called a “war of necessity,” and the war he has made his own. If he fulfills his promise to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, the president will have effectively ended the war against the Taliban. And that will create its own problems.
By building its detention authority on the AUMF, the Obama administration has forced itself into a corner. Once the war is the over, the power to detain disappears. What this means is that as soon as Obama declares an end to the war in Afghanistan, there will be a series of legal challenges from individuals still in Guantanamo Bay, claiming affiliation with the Taliban and demanding their release. The old legal authorities will no longer hold. The Obama administration will either have to find a new basis for holding them — 13 years after many of them were captured — or it will have to release people it has said are too dangerous to set free.
Perhaps the most interesting question about the AUMF and its 60 words is this: What does that sentence prohibit? What — more than 12 years after Congress passed it — is clearly out of bounds?
Several of the lawyers I talked to, officials from both the Bush and Obama administrations, spoke eloquently and at great length about the limits of the AUMF and being constrained by the law. And maybe that is true. But none of them were able to point to a case in which the U.S. knew of a terrorist but couldn’t target him because it lacked the legal authority. Each time the president wanted to kill someone, his lawyers found the authority embedded somewhere in those 60 words.
When the U.S. abducted Abu Anas al-Libi from the front seat of his car in October 2013, it transported him to the USS San Antonio, a ship in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, far beyond the reach of any court.
Three days into Libi’s confinement at sea as word of his abduction leaked out in the press, a public defender in New York asked a federal judge to intervene and force the government to give Libi access to legal counsel. The judge refused, explaining that the government hadn’t actually arrested Libi. Instead he was being detained by the United States Armed Forces, which as federal prosecutors claimed, were “acting under their own legal authorities.” Until the government actually decided to arrest Libi, the judge declared, he could do nothing.
Libi, a man the U.S. had abducted in Libya in 2013 who had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks, was being held under the authority of the AUMF, the 60 words Congress had passed explicitly targeting only those who had been linked to the attacks.
One week after his capture, with his health deteriorating due to a hunger strike, the U.S. moved Libi off the ship and officially arrested him for his alleged role in the 1998 embassy attacks. Only then did the court appoint a lawyer to defend him.
“None of us, not one who voted for it, could have envisioned we were voting for the longest war in American history,” Dick Durbin, a Senate Democrat from Illinois, told Politico early in 2013. “Or that we were about to give future presidents the authority to fight terrorism as far-flung as Yemen and Somalia.”
One person, of course, did envision exactly this sort of open-ended, ill-defined war. But even now, more than a decade after her lonely vote, Barbara Lee still just wants the debate Congress never had in 2001.
“Let the congressional debate begin,” she told me recently. If the U.S. wants to use force in places like Yemen or Somalia and “if people think its worth it, for whatever reason, then let their member of Congress vote for it. That’s the point.”
A lot has changed in the 12 years since Stephen Rademaker and his son Andrew took their midnight drive to a smoldering Pentagon. The war that was authorized that night has now moved into its second generation, jumping from father to son. Stephen is out of government and Andrew, now a 27-year-old House staffer, is in. Osama bin Laden is dead and al-Qaeda, at least as it was configured on 9/11, is no more.
Analysts disagree over whether the new incarnation of al-Qaeda — smaller and more fragmented — is weaker or stronger than it once was. But one thing is certain. It is different. The only thing that has remained the same is that one sentence: 60 words and a war without end.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story stated that Eleanor Holmes Norton had voted for the resolution; as a representative of the District of Columbia, she did not have a vote, as pointed out by reader abp07. | In the haze of 9/11, lawmakers empowered the US president to fight back—and may have given him more power than they bargained for, writes Gregory Johnsen at BuzzFeed. Congress overwhelmingly approved a 60-word law called the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which empowered President George W. Bush to retaliate against anyone behind the 9/11 attacks. Interpretation of the law has since expanded to include all military action, including capture and detention, against "associated forces" of the 9/11 attackers. The law "is like a Christmas tree," said a former Bush administration official. "All sorts of things have been hung off of those 60 words." Johnsen's article looks at the AUMF's tangled history, from its hurried drafting to its 420-1 House vote and its surprising resilience under President Obama—despite his pledge to repeal it. Lawmakers have questioned the AUMF, as Politico reported last year, and now Obama really does plan to kill it off, a top administration official tells the Wall Street Journal. But a dozen years after 9/11, Obama is still ordering drone attacks and secret raids—often against people who were children when the Twin Towers fell. "Let the congressional debate begin," said Rep. Barbara Lee, the one lawmaker who voted against the AUMF. "If people think it's worth it, for whatever reason, then let their member of Congress vote for it. That’s the point." Click for Johnsen's full article. |
IDEALSM is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University and stands for initiating, diagnosing, establishing, acting, and leveraging. weapons systems, command and control systems, satellite systems, inventory management systems, financial systems, personnel systems, payment systems, and others. Many of these systems in turn are connected with systems operated by private contractors, other government agencies, and international organizations. DOD’s ability to effectively manage information technology is critical to its ability to accomplish its mission. Its reliance on software-intensive systems to support operations related to intelligence, surveillance, security, and sophisticated weaponry—along with financial management and other business functions—will only increase as the department modernizes and responds to changes in traditional concepts of warfighting. The scope of DOD’s information technology inventory is vast: over 1.5 million computers, 28,000 systems, and 10,000 computer networks. Further, many of DOD’s most important technology projects continue to cost more than projected, take longer to produce, and deliver less than promised. As a result, we have designated DOD systems development and modernization efforts as a high-risk area. The quality of the processes involved in developing, acquiring, and engineering software and systems has a significant effect on the quality of the resulting products. Accordingly, process improvement programs can increase product quality and decrease product costs. Public and private organizations have reported significant returns on investment through such process improvement programs. SEI has published reports of benefits realized through process improvement programs. For example, SEI reported in 1995 that a major defense contractor implemented a process improvement program in 1988 and by 1995 had reduced its rework costs from about 40 percent of project cost to about 10 percent, increased staff productivity by about 170 percent, and reduced defects by about 75 percent. According to a 1999 SEI report, a software development contractor reduced its average deviation from estimated schedule time from 112 percent to 5 percent between 1988 and 1996. During the same period, SEI reported that this contractor reduced its average deviation from estimated cost from 87 percent to minus 4 percent. To aid organizations attempting to initiate and manage SPI programs, SEI has published a best practices model called IDEAL,SM which defines a systematic, five-phase, continuous process improvement approach, with a concurrent sixth element addressing the program management tasks spanning the five phases (see figure 1). Initiating: During this phase, an organization establishes the management structure of the process improvement program, defines and assigns roles and responsibilities, allocates initial resources, develops a plan to guide the organization through the first three phases of the program, and obtains management approval and funding. Two key organizational components of the program management structure established during this phase are a management steering group and a software engineering process group (SEPG). Responsibility for this phase rests with senior management. Diagnosing: During this phase, the SEPG appraises the current level of process maturity to establish a baseline capability against which to measure progress and identifies any existing process improvement initiatives. The SEPG then uses the baseline to identify weaknesses and target process improvement activities. It also compares these targeted activities with any ongoing process improvement activities and reconciles any differences. Responsibility for this phase rests primarily with line managers and practitioners. Establishing: During this phase, the SEPG prioritizes the process improvement activities and develops strategies for pursuing them. It then develops a process improvement action plan that details the activities and strategies and includes measurable goals for the activities and metrics for monitoring progress against goals. Also during this phase, the resources needed to implement the plan are committed and training is provided for technical working groups, who will be responsible for developing and testing new or improved processes. Responsibility for this phase resides primarily with line managers and practitioners. Acting: During this phase, the technical working groups, formed under the establishing phase, create and evaluate new and improved processes. Evaluation of the processes is based on pilot tests that are formally planned and executed. If the tests are successful, the working groups develop plans for organization-wide adoption and institutionalization, and once approved, execute them. Responsibility for this phase resides primarily with line managers and practitioners. Leveraging: During this phase, results and lessons learned from earlier phases are assessed and applied, as appropriate, to enhance the structures and plans of process improvement programs. Responsibility for this phase rests primarily with senior management. The model’s sixth element, continuous program management, specifies management structures and tasks for planning, organizing, directing, staffing, and monitoring the program. Responsibility for this element rests with senior management. Each phase of the IDEALSM model contains several recommended tasks. Appendix I, which describes our objectives, scope, and methodology, identifies all tasks for each phase. The Army and Air Force units that we reviewed, as well as DFAS and two of the four Navy units, have long-standing SPI programs that satisfy almost every task recommended in the IDEALSM model (see table 1 for a summary of how each component and its units, if applicable, compared to the model). For example, in 1996 the Secretary of the Army mandated that all software development, acquisition, and maintenance activities establish SPI programs. Further, the Army requires that its software activities continually improve their process maturity and has set maturity goals for all of its units. Army regulations also mandate that contractors be evaluated for software process maturity. Moreover, the two specific units within the Army that we reviewed have SPI management structures, plans, and dedicated resources. In addition, these units have continuously evolved in software and system process maturity through many years of assessing their baseline process capabilities, implementing new and improved process initiatives, reassessing process maturity, and implementing lessons learned. Both Army units satisfy all IDEALSM tasks. In contrast, DLA, the Marine Corps, and two of the Navy’s four units that we reviewed do not perform important IDEALSM model tasks. In particular, DLA currently does not satisfy any of the model’s recommended tasks. According to DLA officials, it had an SPI program prior to 1998, but at that time the program was terminated to reduce costs. During our review, DLA’s CIO stated that the agency plans to begin a new SPI program and has taken a first step by assigning organizational responsibility. The Marine Corps has many SPI activities under way that could form the foundation of a program. However, it is not performing several key SPI tasks that are fundamental to SPI program success. For example, the Marine Corps has assigned responsibility for process improvement, and it has begun assessing its software process maturity to establish baseline capability. However, it is not using this baseline as a basis for implementing recommended improvements, nor does it have an SPI plan or dedicated resources for these activities. As such, the likelihood of the Marine Corps’ process improvement initiatives producing desired results is diminished. Two of the four Navy software/systems units that we reviewed also do not have SPI programs that are aligned with the IDEALSM model. To their credit, however, one has recently taken the first step toward initiating a program and the other has activities under way that could form the beginnings of a program. (See appendix IV for more detailed results on each of the components that we reviewed.) The four components that have SPI programs—Army, Air Force, DFAS, and parts of the Navy—have different approaches for directing and controlling their respective programs, ranging from centralized to highly decentralized; each, however, reports positive results. For example, DFAS has a centralized approach, with its headquarters office directing and controlling all SPI activities. In contrast, the Army, Air Force, and Navy have decentralized approaches to SPI program management. The Army, which began its SPI program centrally, has since delegated SPI responsibility to its commands, which—in the case of the two commands we reviewed—have further delegated SPI program management to their respective software/systems units. Similarly, the Air Force units that we reviewed further delegated SPI management to their respective software/systems units. The Navy commands follow different approaches—one manages its program centrally and the other has delegated SPI management to its software/systems units. Despite different approaches, each DOD component/unit with an SPI program reports positive effects on software/systems quality. DFAS, for example, reports that its SPI program has reduced its cost to deliver software to about one-third less than organizations of similar size. One Navy software activity reports reduced costs, improved product quality, and a 7:1 return on its SPI investment. An Army activity reports that it has almost doubled its productivity in writing software for new systems because of improvements made under its SPI program. (See appendix IV for more detailed information on the approaches and reported benefits of the components that we reviewed.) Within OSD, the Assistant Secretary for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence is responsible for establishing and implementing DOD’s policies, processes, programs, and standards governing the development, acquisition, and operation of nonweapons systems software and information systems. Similarly, the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is responsible for establishing DOD acquisition policies and procedures. Accordingly, OSD has an important leadership role to play in ensuring that DOD components reap the maximum possible benefits of effective SPI programs. Such leadership can include dissemination of policies and guidance promoting SPI programs and activities, knowledge of the nature and extent of components’ SPI programs and activities, associated lessons learned and best practices, and facilitation of SPI knowledge-sharing across DOD components. Both OSD organizational units have efforts under way aimed at improving some aspects of DOD’s ability to develop and acquire software and systems. For example, they have established teams to conduct software acquisition maturity assessments and established a software collaborators group. They also are collecting software metrics and establishing training for managers. However, OSD has no SPI actions under way or planned, such as issuing policy and guidance on SPI programs; determining where in DOD SPI programs do and do not exist; promoting the establishment of programs in component units, such as DLA, where they do not exist; and sharing knowledge across DOD about the experiences of reportedly successful SPI programs, such as those within the Army, Air Force, DFAS, and parts of the Navy. According to OSD officials, uncertainty about the costs versus benefits of SPI, resource constraints, and other priorities have precluded such a focus. However, as stated earlier in this report, various organizations, including some DOD components, report positive returns on investments from SPI programs that argue for SPI being treated as a funding priority. Several DOD components have SPI programs that are aligned closely to the best practices embodied in the SEI IDEALSM model and thus provide excellent examples of SPI. However, such programs are lacking in other parts of the department. Where they exist, these programs are being credited with producing higher quality software and systems products faster and at less expense, whether managed in a centralized or decentralized fashion. OSD has an important leadership role to play in expanding SPI across the department. In particular, it can seize opportunities to build upon and leverage the existing base of SPI programs within DOD’s components and help ensure that all of its components realize the strategic value (i.e., benefits that exceed costs) that both private and public-sector organizations, including some DOD components, attribute to these programs. While OSD is faced with making funding choices among competing leadership initiatives, such as its efforts to conduct software acquisition maturity assessments and collect software metrics, these are some of the very tasks that are embedded within an effective SPI program. Thus, by ensuring that DOD components have effective SPI programs, OSD can leverage programs to indirectly accomplish its other high-priority initiatives as well. To strengthen DLA, Marine Corps, and Navy software and systems development, acquisition, and engineering processes, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Director of DLA, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Secretary of the Navy to establish SPI programs where this report shows none currently exist. In so doing, these officials should consider following the best practices embodied in the SEI IDEALSM model and drawing from the experiences of the Army, Air Force, DFAS, and some Navy units. Further, to strengthen DOD-wide SPI, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence, in collaboration with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, to (1) issue a policy requiring DOD components that are responsible for systems/software development, acquisition, or engineering to implement SPI programs, and (2) develop and issue SPI guidance and, in doing so, consider basing this guidance on the SEI IDEALSM model and the positive examples of SPI within the Army, Air Force, DFAS, and some Navy units cited in this report. We also recommend that the Secretary direct the Assistant Secretary for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence to (1) annually determine the components’ compliance with the SPI policy and (2) establish and promote a means for sharing SPI lessons learned and best practices knowledge throughout DOD. In written comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence, who is also the DOD Deputy Chief Information Officer (CIO), agreed with the report’s message that SPI practices should be used and encouraged, and that information about SPI practices should be shared among DOD components. To this end, and since receiving a draft of this report, the Deputy CIO stated that the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) has established a working group that is, among other things, to develop a plan for implementing SPI. According to the Deputy CIO, this plan will be ready for internal review in April 2001. Further, the Deputy CIO stated that a January 2001 revision to DOD Regulation 5000.2-R represents a policy step toward addressing software improvement by including in the regulation a section on software management. According to the Deputy CIO, while this section does not specifically call for an SPI program, the regulation provides guidance for improving software by using, for example, SEI’s Capability Maturity Model level 3 or its equivalent for major acquisition programs with procurement costs in excess of $2.19 billion. In light of the above, the Deputy CIO stated that DOD agreed with our recommendation to establish and promote a means for sharing SPI lessons learned and best practices knowledge throughout DOD, and added that a DOD steering group, which was chartered during the course of our review, has been assigned responsibility for this function. However, the Deputy CIO disagreed with our recommendation that DOD issue a policy to mandate SPI programs for all DOD components and their relevant activities. According to the Deputy CIO, establishing a policy requiring or otherwise directing DOD components that do not have SPI programs to implement them would be premature at this time because there are insufficient data to justify the sole use of the SEI IDEALSM model and that unless a specific model were used, compliance with such a policy or directive would be problematic. Therefore, the Deputy CIO stated a decision regarding the issuance of DOD-wide policy mandating the implementation of SPI programs would not be made until the work group reports its results and develops its plan for implementing SPI. At this point and without the work group’s findings, according to the Deputy CIO, issuance of SPI guidance (as opposed to “policy”) would be “a more beneficial approach.” In our view, the Deputy CIO’s comments are not inconsistent with our recommendations, and our point of disagreement appears to center around simply the timing of actions rather than the recommended actions themselves. Specifically, while we continue to believe that sufficient bases currently exist for issuance of a DOD SPI policy requirement, especially in light of the evidence in our report that (1) without this requirement not all components are implementing SPI and (2) those components that are currently implementing SPI are reporting substantial benefits, it is reasonable for DOD to await its work group’s results before making a decision on how to proceed. Further, we agree with the Deputy CIO’s comment that there are insufficient data to justify citing in DOD policy the SEI IDEALSM model as the single model for SPI. Our report recognizes that not all of the DOD components that we cited as having effective SPI programs are using the same model. As a result, our recommendations did not prescribe a specific SPI model. Instead, we recommended that in developing SPI policy and associated guidance, DOD should consider basing this guidance on the SEI IDEALSM model as well as the positive examples of SPI within the Army, Air Force, DFAS, and some Navy units cited in the report. Regarding the Deputy CIO’s comment that DOD has recently revised DOD Regulation 5000.2-R to include guidance for improving software management through the use of, for example, SEI’s Capability Maturity Model level 3, we note that level 3 requirements include performance of process improvement practices that are expanded upon by the SEI IDEALSM model. Additionally, we note that the regulation does not apply to all DOD software/system programs but, rather, only to acquisition programs that exceed a certain dollar threshold. Therefore, the revised regulation does not fulfill the intent of our recommendations. DOD’s written comments, along with our responses, are reproduced in appendix II. We are sending copies of this report to Senator John Warner, Senator Carl Levin, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Daniel Inouye, and to Representative Bob Stump, Representative Ike Skelton, and Representative C.W. Bill Young, in their capacities as Chairmen, Ranking Members, or Ranking Minority Members of Senate and House Committees and Subcommittees. In addition, we are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Directors of DLA and DFAS; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be available at GAO’s web site, www.gao.gov. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512- 3439 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. Our objectives were to (1) compare selected DOD components’ SPI programs against SEI’s IDEALSM model, which is a recognized best practices model; (2) determine how these components have approached management of their SPI programs and what program results they are reporting; and (3) determine what DOD-wide efforts are under way to promote and leverage the components’ SPI programs. The selected components include all four services—Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps—and two DOD agencies that have large, software-intensive system modernization programs under way—the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). To address the first objective, we reviewed the components’ respective information technology strategic plans as well as available SPI policies, guidance, and program documentation, and interviewed headquarters officials from each component. Using this information, we first ascertained whether SPI programs or activities existed for a component, and if so, how they were organized and structured. For the components in which we found SPI programs or activities, we then identified the units within the components responsible for implementing those programs and activities. In instances in which these responsibilities were decentralized (Army, Air Force, and Navy), we worked with component headquarters and command officials to select at least two units in each component that collectively (1) had missions involving both software-intensive weapons and business systems and (2) were responsible for the largest percentages of software and systems development, acquisition, and engineering activities within each component. Table 2 shows the DOD components and software/systems units where we reviewed SPI programs and activities. Where “not applicable” is indicated in the table, SPI responsibility resided at the “Command/major organizational unit,” and therefore our work did not extend to a “Software/systems unit.” For each unit that we identified as being responsible for implementing an SPI program or activities, we analyzed relevant SPI program documentation, including program descriptions, plans, budgets, and progress and performance measures and reports, and interviewed program officials. We then compared this information with the SPI tasks specified and described in SEI’s IDEALSM model to determine whether the program satisfied the model. Designed to assist organizations in implementing and managing effective SPI programs, the SEI-developed IDEALSM model comprises five specific phases; a sixth element addresses overall management of the five phases. Table 3 provides more information about the tasks involved in each phase. Table 4 lists every task included under each phase. To address the second objective, we analyzed the aforementioned information, conducted additional interviews, and reviewed additional program information from the component units to which SPI management responsibility had been delegated. As part of this objective, we also reviewed program progress and performance reports and discussed program accomplishments with responsible officials to identify examples of SPI benefits. We then analyzed each component’s SPI program results in relation to its program management approach to determine whether any patterns were evident. We did not independently validate components’ reported accomplishments and benefits. To address the third objective, we interviewed responsible component officials, reviewed supporting records and documentation, and visited Internet sites to identify SPI program best practices and lessons learned, along with what efforts are being made to share these with other activities and components throughout the department. We also identified two offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) that have responsibility and activities underway relating to the advancement of software and system management practices in the departmentthe Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence. For each office, we analyzed documentation describing their respective ongoing and planned activities and interviewed officials. In doing so, we focused on identifying any activities that specifically promoted and leveraged SPI programs and activities under way throughout DOD. We also discussed with SPI program officials in each component their awareness of the OSD efforts. We performed our work at Army headquarters, the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia; and interviewed officials and reviewed documentation from the Communications-Electronics Command Software Engineering Center at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; and the Aviation and Missile Command Software Engineering Directorate at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. We also performed our work at Navy headquarters in Arlington, Virginia; and interviewed officials and reviewed documentation from the Naval Aviation Systems Command at Patuxent River, Maryland; and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Centers at San Diego, California; Chesapeake, Virginia; and Charleston, South Carolina. We also interviewed officials and reviewed documentation from the Air Force’s Electronic Systems Center Standard Systems Group at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama; the Materiel Systems Group at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; and the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. We also performed our work at Marine Corps headquarters in Arlington, Virginia; and interviewed officials and reviewed documentation from the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Virginia; and the Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity at Camp Pendleton, California. We also performed work at DFAS headquarters in Arlington, Virginia; and DLA headquarters at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. We conducted our work from March through December 2000, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Defense’s letter dated March 2, 2001. 1. We disagree. Sufficient bases currently exist for issuance of a DOD SPI policy requirement, especially in light of the evidence in our report that (1) without this requirement not all components are implementing SPI and (2) those components that are currently implementing SPI are reporting substantial benefits. Nevertheless, DOD's decision to await an OSD work group's results before making a decision on how to proceed is not unreasonable or inconsistent with our position. 2. See response to comment 1. 3. We disagree. Oversight is an important part of policy implementation, and without such oversight, DOD would incur significant risk that the policy would not be implemented. Further, establishing a baseline measure to determine compliance does not require the implementation of a specific model. The intent of our recommendations is to establish a policy requiring SPI that recognizes, as our report recognizes, that there is more than one model for doing so effectively. Since 1984, the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) has worked to improve management of software/systems productivity and quality primarily by addressing problems in acquiring, developing, engineering, or enhancing software/systems through a series of capability maturity models. According to SEI, an organization’s process capability provides a means of predicting the most likely outcome of the next software/systems project undertaken; process maturity implies that the productivity and quality resulting from an organization’s software/systems processes can be improved as maturity of the processes increases. The IDEALSM model is based on lessons learned from SEI experiences as well as from SEI projects relating to software process capability and maturity. For example, during the initiating phase of the IDEALSM model, general SPI program goals are defined, and this definition could be in terms of capability maturity model levels. In the diagnosing phase, IDEALSM recommends developing an organization process maturity baseline; SEI’s capability maturity model− based appraisal is one way of establishing this baseline. The first of these capability maturity models, the Software Capability Maturity Model® (SW-CMM®), was designed to assist organizations in improving software development and maintenance processes. In this model, software process maturity—ranked from a low of level 1 to a high of level 5—serves as an indicator of the likely range of software cost, schedule, and quality that can be expected to be achieved by projects developed within an organization. (See figure 2.) Continuous process improvement is enabled by quantitative feedback from the process and from piloting innovative ideas and technologies. Detailed measures of the software process and product quality are collected. Both the software process and products are quantitatively understood and controlled. The software process for both management and engineering activities is documented, standardized, and integrated into a standard software process for the organization. All projects use an approved, tailored version of the organization’s standard software process for developing and maintaining software. Basic project management processes are established to track cost, schedule, and functionality. The necessary process discipline is in place to repeat earlier successes on projects with similar applications. The software process is characterized as ad hoc, and occasionally even chaotic. Few processes are defined, and success depends on individual effort. Since the SW-CMM® was published, SEI has developed additional models in the capability maturity series: The Software Acquisition CMM® is a model for improving the software acquisition process. It follows the same five-level architecture as the SW-CMM® but emphasizes acquisition issues and the needs of individuals and groups planning and managing software acquisition activities. The Systems Engineering CMM® describes the essential elements of an organization’s systems engineering process and provides a reference for comparing actual systems engineering practices against these elements. The model addresses the process aspects of systems engineering and the product development portion of the life cycle. This model was a collaboration of several organizations, including SEI. In 1997 a team led by DOD, in conjunction with SEI, government, and industry, concentrated on developing an integrated framework for maturity models and associated products. The result was the CMM IntegrationSM (CMMISM), which is intended to provide guidance for improving an organization’s processes and the ability to manage the development, acquisition, and maintenance of products and services, while reducing the redundancy and inconsistency caused by using stand-alone models. The CMMISM combines earlier models from SEI and the Electronic Industries Alliance into a single model for use by organizations pursuing enterprise-wide process improvement. However, the prototype CMMISM does not include the acquisition features of the SA-CMM® because the team wanted to focus first on the development process. A CMMISM that includes coverage for acquiring software-intensive systems is currently being developed. Additional disciplines may also be covered. Ultimately, the CMMISM is to replace the models that have been its starting point. The Army depends on software-intensive systems to support each of its major commands and every facet of its mission, from weapons to financial management systems. The Army budgeted about $3.3 billion on information technology during fiscal year 2000. The Army has assigned responsibility for information systems to the Army Materiel Command (AMC). Several major subcommands function under AMC. Three of these major subcommands—the Communications- Electronics Command (CECOM), the Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), and the Tank-Automotive Command—are responsible for the acquisition, development, engineering, and maintenance of information technology for the Army. We reviewed the Army’s SPI activities at CECOM and AMCOM. CECOM has assigned responsibility for information systems to its Software Engineering Center (SEC). The center, located at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, is supported by several software/systems activities located across the United States. The center is responsible for overseeing about 85 percent of the Army’s systems, including (1) command, control, communications, and computers; (2) intelligence, electronic warfare, and sensors; (3) sustaining base/power projection; and (4) AMC business systems. AMCOM has assigned responsibility for its information systems to its Software Engineering Directorate (SED). This directorate, located at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, oversees and provides life-cycle support to both aviation and missile weapons systems. (See figure 3.) Army’s SPI program activities began in the early 1990s; in mid-1996 the Secretary mandated that all Army software acquisition, development, and maintenance activities establish SPI programs. At the same time, the Army published an SPI policy that specified two requirements: First, a contractor’s capability to produce quality software will be part of the Army’s source-selection evaluation process. The Army has implemented this requirement by evaluating potential contractors against SW-CMM® level 3 maturity requirements and requiring contractors that do not meet these requirements to propose a strategy for mitigating the risks associated with not meeting them. This requirement is further enforced during milestone reviews of major systems, when the program manager must show that the contractor meets these requirements. Second, Army software activities will continually improve their software and systems process maturity, including self-assessments of existing processes, and achieve SW-CMM® level 3 within 6 years of initial assessment. Both the CECOM SEC and the AMCOM SED SPI programs are fully consistent with the IDEALSM model. Table 5 shows examples of program elements that reflect some of the recommended tasks in the IDEALSM model; table 6 provides a detailed comparison of CECOM and AMCOM’s SPI programs against each of the IDEALSM model recommended tasks. When the Army first launched its SPI activities, it managed initiation and diagnosis centrally, with both CECOM and AMCOM being involved in these early actions. Subsequently, as many groups throughout the Army were trained in using the SEI process maturity measurements, responsibility for implementing SPI programs was delegated to the commands. The Army has since expanded this decentralized approach, giving each command the SPI requirements through Army policy and allowing each to implement the policy as it determines best supports its mission. According to information that these two subcommands provided, their SPI programs have produced positive results. One of AMCOM’s measures of software quality is development productivity, which is the number of lines of software code produced as a function of resources invested. According to AMCOM, SED’s productivity ratio for new development products increased from 1.30 to 2.48 as a result of moving from SW-CMM® level 2 to level 3. SED reports that it has recently achieved level 4. Software-intensive systems are vital to the Air Force’s overall mission. They are used to sustain weapons systems, airborne electronics, electronic warfare, space communications, and support equipment. The Air Force has about 1,600 systems and budgeted about $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2000 for information technology. The Air Force has nine major commands, but its largest software/systems units are under the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC). Within AFMC, we reviewed SPI efforts at two units within the Electronic Systems Center, which provides command and control and information systems for the Air Force as well as for other DOD units, using a budget of over $3 billion in fiscal year 2000. The two units that we reviewed were the Standard Systems Group (SSG) at Montgomery, Alabama, and the Materiel Systems Group (MSG) at Dayton, Ohio. In addition, we reviewed SPI activities at the Air Force Academy (AFA), which has one of the remaining software/systems units outside AFMC. (See figure 4.) SSG is the largest software/systems unit within the Air Force in terms of money invested and amount of software delivered. Its mission is to develop and maintain combat support information systems for the Air Force and other DOD components. Additionally, SSG manages information technology contracts and standard information systems programs commonly used at all active and reserve Air Force bases and some DOD agencies worldwide. Next to SSG, MSG is the largest Air Force central software/systems unit. MSG’s mission is to support the Air Force goal of information dominance through acquiring, developing, maintaining, reengineering, and providing technical services for information systems. AFA has a software/systems unit that is primarily responsible for maintaining and developing the Cadet Administrative Management Information System, a mission-critical database system that tracks the progress of cadets from precandidacy through academic, physical, ethical/moral, and military training programs and, after graduation, throughout their Air Force careers. In 1991, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force initiated the service’s SPI program. In particular, Air Force software/systems units were directed to complete SW-CMM® assessments by October 1, 1994, perform follow-up assessments every 2 years, and achieve SW-CMM® level 3 by 1998. Air Force’s 1994 SPI policy was revised this year. This revised policy requires all units that develop or maintain software/systems to have an SPI program and a documented SPI plan that includes, at least, a baseline measure of their current capabilities, goals and milestones they intend to reach, and metrics with which to measure their progress toward goals and milestones. The IDEALSM model is the framework the Air Force recommends to its software/systems units, and our comparison of the activities at SSG, MSG, and AFA to the IDEALSM model found that their respective SPI programs are almost all aligned with the model. Specifically, each of the programs satisfied all but five of the IDEALSM model recommended tasks, and none of those five is significant enough to preclude having effective SPI programs. Table 7 shows examples of the programs’ elements that reflect some of the recommended tasks in the IDEALSM model; table 8 shows a detailed comparison of SSG, MSG, and AFA SPI programs against each of the IDEALSM model recommended tasks. Air Force headquarters has delegated SPI responsibility to its software/systems units. When the Air Force began its SPI activities in 1991, its goal was to initiate SPI by performing assessments that would indicate the current level of maturity at Air Force units. Management of this effort was centralized in the Air Force Communications Agency (AFCA). AFCA staff visited all 41 Air Force units, some more than once, to perform assessments. Once software/systems units became capable of conducting their own process maturity measurements, Air Force began decentralizing management of the SPI program to the units. The last year in which the Air Force exercised any centralized management of SPI was 1998. The Air Force’s SPI efforts have been, in its view, beneficial. For example, one Air Force center reported a 7.5-to-1 return on its SPI investment, which was independently verified. An official at another center stated that SPI had allowed its organization to achieve higher process maturity levels and made significant improvements in the quality of its software products and its productivity measures. The Navy depends on software-intensive systems to support many functions throughout its nine operating forces—including the Marine Corps—and its 15 support units—including four major systems commands. These systems support some aspect of every operation, including strategic and tactical operations; sophisticated weaponry; intelligence, surveillance, and security; strategic sealift and fleet mobilization and readiness; and routine business functions such as finance, personnel, logistics, and contract management. In fiscal year 2000, the Navy budgeted about $3.1 billion for information technology. Within the Navy, acquisition, development, and maintenance of these systems is delegated to its major systems commands: the Naval Aviation Systems Command (NAVAIR), Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), Naval Sea Systems Command, and Naval Supply Systems Command. We reviewed SPI activities at NAVAIR and SPAWAR. Both commands have several subordinate units involved in acquiring, developing, and maintaining systems. (See figure 5.) and Acquisition) NAVAIR provides full life-cycle support to 148 programs, such as aircraft, avionics, air-launched weapons, electronic warfare, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles. NAVAIR has two divisions (weapons and aircraft). The weapons division has two California product centers, and the aircraft division has three centers, located in New Jersey, Maryland, and Florida. SPAWAR develops, acquires, and maintains systems through three SPAWAR Systems Centers (SSC). These centers are at San Diego, California; Chesapeake, Virginia; and Charleston, South Carolina. We reviewed SPAWAR’s SPI efforts at all three centers. SSC San Diego develops, acquires, and supports command, control, communications, and ocean surveillance systems. SSC Chesapeake develops, acquires, and supports supply, inventory, finance, food service, and other information systems. SSC Charleston develops, acquires, and supports command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems. To guide and direct their respective SPI programs, these commands follow DOD and other models and standards. Commands have also established local policy. For instance, SPAWAR policy requires all managers with software-related responsibilities at San Diego to incorporate process improvement in the areas of new development, modification, reuse, reengineering, maintenance, integration, and all other activities resulting in software products. In 2000, NAVAIR published an interim policy that requires prospective contractors to be evaluated at SEI SW-CMM® level 3 for all acquisitions. Navy’s experience with SPI to date has been mixed. Both SSC San Diego and NAVAIR have SPI programs that are consistent with the IDEALSM model. However, SSC Chesapeake’s and SSC Charleston’s programs are not. Specifically, SSC Chesapeake has only recently initiated an SPI program and, while efforts to date are aligned with the IDEALSM model, many important SPI program tasks have yet to be executed. For example, in July 2000 it completed some initiating-phase tasks, such as creating a management steering group and an SEPG. However, it has yet, for example, to (1) conduct baselines to identify process strengths and weaknesses in the diagnosing phase, (2) develop an SPI plan with measurable goals and committed resources in the establishing phase, (3) pilot-test potential solutions or transition the solutions to long-term support in the acting phase, or (4) gather or analyze lessons learned in the leveraging phase. In the case of SSC Charleston, no SPI program exists, although the center has undertaken one task that is intended to begin the initiating phase of a program. Table 9 shows examples of Navy SPI programs’ elements that reflect some of the recommended tasks in the IDEALSM model; table 10 shows a detailed comparison of NAVAIR and SPAWAR SPI programs against each of the IDEALSM model recommended tasks. The Navy has delegated SPI responsibility to its commands, which in some cases have further decentralized SPI program management within the command structure. For example, NAVAIR manages its SPI program centrally through its Software Process Improvement Office. Established in 1999, this office, in combination with two NAVAIR executive groups, establishes NAVAIR software improvement policies, monitors performance, and provides support for process training and baselining. In contrast to NAVAIR, SPAWAR decentralized SPI program management to its SSCs. Navy reports several SPI program benefits. For example, officials at NAVAIR’s F/A-18 software program report reaching SW-CMM® level 3 with benefits including cost savings, improved product quality, and a 7:1 return on their SPI investment. In addition, SSC San Diego officials report that their SPI program significantly reduced both the number of software defects and the time expended in testing their air traffic control program system. In particular, staff months spent addressing trouble reports were reduced by 70 percent. These officials also state that benefits from SPI include better management control, improved overall software performance, higher customer satisfaction, and increased competitive advantage and repeat business. The Marine Corps depends on software-intensive systems to support every facet of its mission—from weapons to tactical communications systems. In fiscal year 2000, the Marine Corps budgeted about $525 million for information technology. The Marine Corps has assigned responsibility for acquisition, development, engineering, and maintenance of information technology to the Marine Corps Systems Command. The Command is the sole procurement activity for the Marine Corps, purchasing everything from business systems to software-intensive weaponry such as tanks and command, control, communications, and computer equipment. The Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity (MCTSSA), located at Camp Pendleton, California, is a subordinate command. MCTSSA is responsible for software life-cycle support of designated Marine Corps and joint-service tactical data systems and software. (See figure 6.) According to MCTSSA officials, the Marine Corps does not have a formal SPI program, although it has performed SPI activities since the early 1990s. MCTSSA uses both DOD and Marine Corps guidance to manage its SPI activities. At one time, however, MCTSSA appeared to be on its way to a formal SPI program. It started SPI activities in the early 1990s, and by 1995 was using SEI to support them. For example, during 1995 and 1996 SEI assisted the Marine Corps in identifying program weaknesses and in developing solutions to improve them. However, MCTSSA officials stated that they did not renew the SEI contract because of a lack of funds. MCTSSA is performing many of the tasks recommended by the IDEALSM model. Table 11 shows examples of activities that reflect some of the recommended tasks in the IDEALSM model; however, in all but the diagnosing phase, MCTSSA is not executing some key recommended tasks. For example, (1) in the initiating phase, it has not defined general SPI goals or guiding principles; (2) in the establishing phase, it has not developed an SPI plan with measurable goals and committed resources; (3) in the acting phase, it developed solutions but never pilot-tested potential solutions or transitioned the solutions to long-term support; and (4) in the leveraging phase, it gathered lessons learned but did not analyze them or use them to revise its organizational approach. Further, it has not reviewed its sponsorship and commitment, established high-level goals, or decided to continue with the SPI process. Without performing these steps, it is unlikely that SPI activities will produce the kind of meaningful advances in product quality and cost savings that other DOD components have realized. Table 12 shows a detailed comparison of MCTSSA SPI activities against each of the IDEALSM model recommended tasks. The Marine Corps has adopted a decentralized management approach for SPI by delegating responsibility to the Command, which in turn has delegated most of the responsibility to MCTSSA. Specifically, the Command retained overall responsibility for SPI but assigned other activities, such as defining standard processes or metrics, to MCTSSA. DFAS provides finance and accounting services to DOD components. Created in 1991, it replaced more than 300 service and agency finance and accounting offices that operated more than 300 systems. DFAS consists of five centers and 20 field offices; it operates 83 finance and accounting systems but plans to reduce this number to about 30 or fewer by the end of 2005. The systems are acquired and maintained by seven software/systems units called systems engineering organizations (SEOs). (See figure 7.) In fiscal year 2000, DFAS budgeted about $225 million for information services. DFAS began its SPI program in 1993 when responsibility for SPI was assigned to the Financial Systems Organization (FSO) and a corporate SEPG was established to manage the program and coordinate SPI among FSO field locations. FSO established an SPI policy in its 1995 SPI strategic action plan. That policy is currently under revision. The latest draft revision has continuous SPI as an objective for all DFAS SEOs. The policy also requires that best practices be shared across all DFAS SEOs and that process metrics be collected, maintained, analyzed, used, and reported to support the SPI process. DFAS’ SPI program is fully consistent with the IDEALSM model. Table 13 shows examples of DFAS activities that reflect some of the recommended IDEALSM tasks; table 14 shows a detailed comparison of DFAS SPI activities with each of the IDEALSM model recommended tasks. DFAS centralized SPI program management when it started its program under FSO in 1993. When reorganized in 1998, DFAS retained centralized SPI management by assigning it to the Infrastructure Services Organization (ISO). Under the draft SPI policy revision, management of the program will still be centralized in headquarters, but responsibilities will be split between ISO and its parent unit, the Information and Technology Directorate (ITD). Specifically, the draft revision assigns the ITD responsibility for approving SPI policies, maintaining metrics, and analyzing metrics for the purpose of recommending changes in priorities, resources, and processes. The draft revision assigns the ISO responsibility for publishing SPI policies, maintaining the agency process assets library, and coordinating DFAS-wide SPI activities. ITD reports that its SPI program has improved DFAS staff productivity. A DFAS contractor has conducted benchmarking measurements on DFAS software/systems development efforts. Results from 1996 and 1997 measurements show that DFAS develops and maintains software (measured in terms of function points) for $0.67 that costs an average organization $1.00, a comparable government organization $1.06, and a comparable large commercial organization $1.37. The contractor cited “strong processes” as one factor that contributed to DFAS’ productivity. DLA is a combat support agency whose primary role is to provide supply management, logistics services, and distribution support to America’s military forces worldwide. It relies on software-intensive systems to administer over $900 billion in DOD and other agency contracts. DLA budgeted about $784 million for information technology in fiscal year 2000. In 1998, DLA’s systems design center operated nine systems development and maintenance units across the country. After closing this center in December 1998 in order to streamline operations and reduce costs, DLA created three systems integration offices to oversee the development and maintenance units, which have been cut from nine to seven. (See figure 8.) Each of the three offices supports software development and maintenance for a separate DLA business function—materiel management, logistics, and base support and distribution. DLA does not have an SPI program, having eliminated the program in 1998 when its system design center was closed in 1998. However, as part of its ongoing reorganization, DLA rewrote the policy and duties of its CIO and moved that function to the new Information Operations unit. The CIO told us that the SPI program is to be reestablished. However, specific plans and milestones for doing so were not available. In addition to the individual named above, key contributors to this report were Tonia Brown, Suzanne Burns, Michael Fruitman, John Ortiz, Madhav Panwar, and Teresa Tucker. The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 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. Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512-6000 fax: (202) 512-6061 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. Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm e-mail: [email protected] 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system) | Several Department of Defense (DOD) components have software and systems process improvement (SPI) programs that are aligned closely to the best practices embodied in the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) IDEAL model and thus provide excellent examples of SPI. Elsewhere in DOD, however, such programs are lacking. Where they do exist, these programs are being credited with producing higher quality software and systems products faster and at less expense, whether managed in a centralized or decentralized fashion. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has an important leadership role to play in expanding SPI across the department. In particular, it can seize opportunities to build upon and leverage the existing base of SPI programs within DOD's components and help ensure that all of its components realize the strategic value (i.e., benefits that exceed costs) that both private and public-sector organizations, including some DOD components, attribute to these programs. Although OSD faces funding choices among competing leadership initiatives, such as its efforts to conduct software acquisition maturity assessments and collect software metrics, these are some of the very tasks that are embedded within an effective SPI program. Thus, by ensuring that DOD components have effective SPI programs, OSD can leverage programs to indirectly accomplish its other high-priority initiatives as well. |
EOS is the centerpiece of NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth, whose overall goal is to understand the total earth system (air, water, land, life, and their interactions) and the effects of natural and human-induced changes on the global environment. EOS has three major components: (1) a constellation of satellites designed to collect at least 15 years of key climate-related data; (2) a data and information system designed to operate the satellites and process, archive, and distribute the data; and (3) teams of scientists who develop algorithms for converting sensor data into useful information and conduct basic research using the information. The satellites, and data and information system, which will absorb most of the program’s funding, provide the researchers with measurements that will enable them to address established research priorities. EOS is designed to make 24 types of long-term measurements of solar irradiance and the earth’s atmosphere, land cover, ice sheets, and oceans from orbiting spacecraft. By 2002, when the full constellation will be in orbit, EOS will be generating data from 25 instruments on at least 10 spacecraft. Over the 20-year EOS data-collection phase, about 80 instruments will be launched on more than 30 satellites. As currently planned, the last EOS satellite will cease operations in 2020. EOS measurements will support researchers’ efforts to address Mission to Planet Earth’s research priorities: (1) determine the causes and consequences of changes in atmospheric ozone; (2) improve seasonal-to-interannual climate prediction; (3) determine the mechanisms of long-term climate variability; (4) document changes in land cover, biodiversity, and global productivity; and (5) understand earth processes that can lead to natural disasters and develop risk assessment capabilities for vulnerable regions. Mission to Planet Earth is NASA’s contribution to the governmentwide U.S. Global Change Research Program. An important goal of these interconnected efforts is to improve the predictive capability of numerical earth system models, especially global climate models that investigate and predict the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean. NASA has identified a potentially large and diverse “user community” for EOS-related information. Members of this community could be, for example, educators, businessmen, and public policymakers. The focus of our analysis, however, is the EOS basic research community, by which we mean NASA’s currently funded EOS interdisciplinary science and instrument investigations. In our June 1995 report, we estimated that funding requirements of the EOS baseline program would total about $33 billion for fiscal years 1991 to 2022. This estimate was developed for the program described in NASA’s 1995 EOS reference handbook and included costs for satellites, launch services, data systems, science, construction of facilities, and civil service personnel. However, NASA later recognized that this program was not affordable in an environment of declining budgets and began studying ways to cut costs by using advanced technology and increasing collaboration with other agencies, international partners, and the commercial sector. NASA intended to use these future savings to fund more science under EOS and to reduce the program’s total cost. Over the past several years, the Congress has progressively reduced NASA’s planned spending on EOS for fiscal years 1990 to 2000 from $17 billion to $7.25 billion. In response, NASA changed EOS in 1991 and 1992 from a complete earth system measuring program that would have supported a wide array of global change investigations to a measurement program that will primarily support investigations of global changes to the earth’s climate. For example, NASA dropped the measurement of upper atmospheric chemistry and solid earth processes. Other changes followed in order to further adjust EOS to its progressively lower budget profile through 2000. NASA officials stated the current planned spending for EOS through 2000 is about $6.8 billion. The administration’s fiscal year 1997 request for Mission to Planet Earth is $1.402 billion, of which $846.8 million is for development of EOS’ data and information system, spacecraft, instruments, and algorithms. NASA’s request includes $47.5 million for EOS interdisciplinary science. According to NASA’s 5-year plan based on its fiscal year 1996 budget submission, NASA intends to increase spending on EOS interdisciplinary science to $73.2 million per year in fiscal year 2000. Like EOS-related space systems and information systems, the development of the EOS basic research community that will conduct interdisciplinary global climate change research requires planning. The current number of EOS investigations funded by NASA is relatively small, and NASA recognizes that it needs to increase their number, broaden the membership of EOS science teams, and take other steps to develop and sustain an EOS-era research community. NASA’s strategy for developing the EOS research community is partly based on increased funding. In 1995, it began efforts to fund additional investigations and to reevaluate the current investigations. NASA’s ability to add more investigations is uncertain within its expected future budgets, especially if it must depend on savings from improved technology and increased collaboration with others. The EOS program is currently funding 29 interdisciplinary science investigations that were selected in 1989 and 1990 to use data from EOS instruments in more than one earth science discipline, such as geology, oceanography, meteorology, and climatology. Scientists associated with these investigations serve as members of the Investigator Working Group, developing detailed science plans and assisting NASA in optimizing the scientific return of the EOS mission. Currently, these 29 investigations are led by 31 interdisciplinary principal investigators (2 of the interdisciplinary science investigations have coprincipal investigators). There are 354 coinvestigators associated with the 29 interdisciplinary science investigations, as well as 20 instrument principal investigators/team leaders and 197 other instrument team members. The number of EOS investigations is relatively small when compared with (1) the number of currently funded investigations associated with two pre-EOS missions—the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) and the U.S.-French Oceanography Satellite Ocean Topography Experiment (TOPEX/Poseidon)—to their EOS-era counterparts and (2) the ratio of the number of investigations to the raw data acquisition rate expected from instruments on EOS spacecraft to the number of investigations and raw data acquisition rates of UARS and TOPEX. The comparison is based on the following EOS spacecraft and instruments: AM; PM; Chemistry mission (CHEM); Landsat-7; Radar ALT; Laser ALT; Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE) III on space station; and Solar Stellar Irradiance Comparison Experiment (SOLSTICE), Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), and Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) on flights of opportunity. The data rates of the EOS spacecraft and UARS/TOPEX are not strictly comparable because the instruments on the latter satellites do not directly observe the Earth. Imaging instruments are more data intensive than nonimaging instruments. However, data rate comparisons can serve as a rough indicator of the magnitude of potential research opportunities afforded by EOS and two pre-EOS-era missions. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used similar comparisons in its 1993 and 1995 editions of the EOS reference handbook. In the 1995 edition, NASA graphically compared the combined data rates of EOS-era satellites with the combined data rates of numerous pre-EOS-era (including UARS and TOPEX) and foreign satellites to demonstrate that the magnitude of potential research opportunities for EOS is much greater than for other combinations of Earth-sensing satellites. In its handbooks, NASA depicted the data streams flowing from the two groups of satellites to “10,000 users” in the 1993 edition and a more vaguely defined “user community” in the 1995 edition. In place of the broadly defined “users” and user community, we used the actual number of currently funded EOS, UARS, and TOPEX investigations to illustrate (1) that the magnitude of potential EOS basic research opportunities is much greater than those afforded by UARS and TOPEX (as indicated by their respective data rates) and (2) that the number of currently funded EOS investigations is small compared to the number of currently funded UARS and TOPEX investigations. UARS, launched in September 1991, consists of 10 instruments that are measuring the composition and temperature of the upper atmosphere, atmospheric winds, and energy from the sun. The UARS science investigations are led by 22 teams. NASA broadened the UARS science investigations in 1994 by selecting 40 additional teams led by “guest” investigators. It is also funding correlative measurement investigations led by 38 teams to develop an independent database to validate and complement measurements made by UARS’ instruments. In the EOS era, solar energy and atmospheric chemistry measurements will be made principally by the ACRIM, SAGE, and SOLSTICE instruments and the CHEM spacecraft. Currently, only 12 instrument and interdisciplinary science investigations are associated with these instruments and the CHEM spacecraft. In contrast, UARS supports research conducted by 62 instrument and science teams. TOPEX was launched in August 1992 to study the circulation of the world’s oceans. The primary instrument is an altimeter that measures the height of the satellite above the ocean, wind speed, and wave height. NASA and its French partner, Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, selected 38 science investigations. The 38 TOPEX-related science teams have about 200 members, and NASA plans to solicit additional investigations. In the EOS era, the follow-on mission to TOPEX is Radar-ALT. An instrument team has not yet been selected, but only 7 of the 29 interdisciplinary science investigations currently plan to use Radar-ALT data. There is a large difference between the number of (1) currently funded EOS investigations and the expected volume of data from EOS and (2) the currently funded UARS and TOPEX investigations and volume of data of these two pre-EOS missions. The combined number of the UARS and TOPEX science investigations is a little larger than the current number of EOS investigations, even though EOS’ data rate (our indicator of the magnitude of potential research opportunities) is close to 1,000 times greater than the combined data rate of UARS and TOPEX. EOS will provide up to 42 million bits of data per second to 49 interdisciplinary science and instrument investigations. The corresponding ratio for UARS and TOPEX is a total of 48 thousand bits of data per second to 60 investigations. The National Research Council’s Board on Sustainable Development reviewed the U.S. Global Change Research Program, Mission to Planet Earth, and EOS in 1995 and stated that one of the “fundamental guiding principles” of the U.S. Global Change Research Program is an “open and accessible program” that will “encourage broad participation” by the government, academic, and private sectors. Some NASA officials and EOS investigators are concerned that the Earth sciences research community perceives EOS’ science teams as a “closed shop,” whereby membership on a current team is a precondition for conducting future EOS-related research. To counter this perception, NASA’s current strategy to expand the EOS research community involves (1) an open data access policy and (2) efforts to broaden and change the current community by adding investigations, reevaluating the current science investigations, and recruiting new investigators. A vital part of the EOS data policy is that EOS data will be available to everyone: there will be no period of exclusive access for funded investigators. This has not always been NASA’s policy. On some past Earth observing missions, funded investigators had exclusive use of the data for an extended period of time. For example, the original investigators associated with the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite had exclusive access to the first year’s data for up to 2 years. EOS data users as a rule will not be charged more than the cost of distributing data to them. The data policy contemplates a variety of potential user groups, not all of whom will be engaged in basic research. In 1995, NASA sponsored a conference to better define the user groups. The conferees identified 12 potential user groups, of which only 3 were primarily composed of scientists. The others included commercial users, resource planners, and educational groups. NASA officials stated that about 10,000 Earth scientists might use EOS-related data. Even with the large size of this potential research community and the open-access data policy, the sufficiency of EOS investigations might appear to be the least of NASA’s problems. Even though 10,000 Earth scientists may be potential users of EOS data, they still need to be funded to conduct basic research. According to NASA officials, as a general rule, for this type of work, scientists analyze data when they are paid to do so. We sought to confirm this observation by reviewing the authorship of 172 journal articles about 2 pre-EOS-era satellites—UARS and TOPEX/Poseidon. Our review showed that publicly funded investigators wrote all but 10 of the articles. We reviewed the authorship of UARS and TOPEX articles published in scientific journals from the approximate dates of launch through May 1995; these articles were selected from a database consisting of about 4,500 periodicals. The principal investigators wrote 123 (72 percent) of the 172 articles. In addition, we identified two other kinds of investigators probably associated with the principal investigators and/or government funded—that is, investigators associated with the principal investigator’s institution (most often a university or government agency) or another government agency. These “associate” investigators wrote 39 (23 percent) of the journal articles. Not all people who get Earth sciences data use it to do basic research. For example, from January through May 1995, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory sent 55,521 TOPEX-related data files to 28,495 requesters through the Internet. This figure does not necessarily represent separate requesters. The laboratory does not know how these requesters use TOPEX data, but according to a laboratory official, data accessed through the Internet is generally not sufficient for doing basic research. Investigators want less processed data for this type of research. NASA originally solicited proposals for EOS interdisciplinary science and instrument investigations in January 1988. The solicitation noted that NASA planned to fund 10 to 20 science investigations, with other selections possible before the launch of the first EOS platform, then scheduled for late 1995. NASA received 458 proposals in response to its solicitation, including about 250 for interdisciplinary science investigations. As previously noted, 29 interdisciplinary science and 20 instrument investigations are being funded by NASA and its international partners. The lifetime of the science investigations was to extend for 4 years beyond the launch of the first satellite, or until 1999. In other words, NASA intended to add to this first group of investigations over a 10-year period (1989 to 1999). However, at a minimum, the lifetime of this first group of investigations has been extended to 13 years (1989 to 2002, including 4 years beyond AM-1’s 1998 launch date). NASA’s plan to supplement the first group of science investigations with a second group within 6 years was not too optimistic given its funding expectations at that time. NASA’s EOS mission planning (1982-87) took place during a time of expanding resources. During the 1980s, NASA’s funding increased each year, essentially doubling from about $5 billion to $10 billion between fiscal years 1981 and 1989. NASA has recognized that more EOS investigations are needed, and last year it took a first step to add more. NASA solicited proposals in September 1995 to address, among other things, specific interdisciplinary science issues that are not well covered by existing NASA-funded investigations. It received 134 interdisciplinary science proposals and hopes to add 20 to 25 investigations with grants of about $250,000 to $400,000 per year for a period of up to 3 years. NASA is funding the interdisciplinary science part of the September 1995 solicitation with a $9-million “funding wedge” created, in part, from reductions in the previously planned funding levels for some existing EOS investigations. According to a NASA official, no new money will be used to fund these investigators. It remains to be seen if NASA’s ability to generate future savings in the program will become a major factor in increasing the number of EOS investigations. Although potentially useful over the longer term, these grants will not immediately increase the number of EOS investigations in the near term because the announcement largely precludes investigators from analyzing data from the first EOS mission, AM-1, which is now scheduled for launch in 1998. Instead, NASA is asking for proposals on interdisciplinary research that primarily uses existing data sets from past satellite missions and field experiments.The nature and membership of the EOS science teams has largely remained unchanged for 6 years. According to NASA officials, this longevity has created a perception among some Earth scientists that currently funded investigators constitute a “closed shop.” NASA attempted to correct this perception by conducting an internal program review in 1992 and 1993 and an external peer review in 1995 and 1996. The review by EOS investigators’ peers in the Earth sciences research community is not yet finished, but it could lead to the possible deselection and recompetition of some EOS interdisciplinary science teams. NASA opted for the peer review, rather than have all the current investigations reevaluated as part of a new solicitation for proposals. NASA’s 1992-93 program review found weaknesses in many interdisciplinary science teams. The reviewers generally found that only 30 percent of 23 investigations could be rated “successful” in terms of science-related assessment measures. They also noted that “most teams need work in documenting their scientific progress, plans, and the policy relevance of their research to the Earth Science community, as well as to NASA.” The reviewers specifically noted that 67 percent (of 24 teams) had poor management plans, 61 percent (of 23 teams) had a less than satisfactory publication record, and 57 percent (of 23 teams) needed to improve their contacts with the EOS instrument teams. The review concluded that “for most teams, the biggest factor hindering their success is their lack of a good management plan—teams that do not have their own house in order will not benefit from increased collaborations” with other interdisciplinary and instrument teams. In October 1994, the Science Executive Committee of the EOS Investigator Working Group endorsed the need for a peer review and possible turnover of teams, if this would enhance the quality of EOS investigations. The Committee, however, rejected the idea that the existing investigations should be evaluated through a new competition. It noted that a new competition could cause a loss of credibility with EOS supporters and that many interdisciplinary science teams had committed themselves “far beyond” just their science tasks. In contrast, NASA struck a different balance between continuity and change in the pre-EOS-era U.S.-Japan Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission. The goal of the spacecraft’s three principal instruments is to measure rainfall more accurately than before, particularly over the tropical oceans. The science of a long-term investigatory group was reevaluated after 3 years by holding a new funding competition for this program. NASA and Japan’s National Space Development Agency first solicited research proposals in 1990 for a possible launch in 1994. Both agencies selected a total of 35 investigators. The two space agencies in October 1993 again solicited research proposals for a launch now scheduled for 1997. The space agencies selected 27 of the original investigators and added 12 new investigators to the science team. The long-term growth of the EOS research community depends, in part, on NASA’s ability to recruit graduate students and newly graduated Earth scientists to use remotely sensed data. NASA supports prospective researchers in the Earth sciences through the graduate student Global Change Fellowship program. Successful candidates can be funded for up to 3 years, at $20,000 per year, primarily for tuition support and living expenses. NASA supported 112 fellowships for the 1993-94 academic year. In September 1995, NASA also established a new investigator program as part of Mission to Planet Earth and solicited proposals for 10 to 15 interdisciplinary investigations from recent Ph.D. recipients. The proposed investigations must be based on data from existing satellite missions. NASA received 65 proposals in response to this solicitation. while some of the multi-year reductions may be accomplished without serious effect on the program, it must be stated that the achievement of several essential elements (e.g., continuity of observations for 15 years) of the program are now at significantly greater risk. Despite this apprehension, most interdisciplinary science investigators have experienced or expect little or no effect of budgetary turbulence on their own research. In the 1992-93 program review, NASA’s investigators were generally optimistic that they could withstand EOS’ continuing budgetary turbulence. In 1995, investigators reaffirmed this optimism. As part of the 1992-93 program review, NASA asked EOS’ interdisciplinary science principal investigators to evaluate the effect changes to EOS would have on their work. The reviewers classified the 23 responding investigators’ remarks as follows: no effect (11 investigators, 48 percent); minor effect (8 investigators, 35 percent); and major effect (4 investigators, 17 percent). The program review followed the cancellation of three major EOS instruments over several years: Laser Atmospheric Wind Sounder (observation of lower atmospheric winds); High-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (identification of surface composition); and Synthetic Aperture Radar (high-resolution global measurements of the Earth’s surface). Whether scientists planned to use a canceled instrument was a major part of how they perceived the impact on their work. Some investigators also cited changes to their ongoing research resulting from little or no growth in most of their fiscal year 1994 budgets. According to a NASA official, only seven investigations received as much as a 10-percent increase in their 1994 budget above the amount for fiscal year 1992. One investigator, citing a flat budget for 1994, said that as a result, coinvestigators could not give full attention to EOS-related research and that it was “difficult for us to contemplate an accelerated or broadened attack on the global change problems we are addressing.” Another investigator noted that such a budget meant that “some research tasks have to be trimmed” and would not “allow much flexibility in terms of new ideas and initiatives.” In 1995, NASA again asked the interdisciplinary science principal investigators to assess how changes over the previous 3 years to the EOS program had affected their future and ongoing research. The scientists cited the same mix of concerns as they had previously—namely, the loss of several instruments and lack of growth in their funding. One investigator noted that a 20-percent budget reduction in 1994 “decimated our attempts to carry out field studies in collaboration with team members.” His view, however, was unique. Most investigators reported that the changes had so far created only relatively minor problems that could be adequately resolved. A NASA official told us that a reason for investigators’ optimism is that NASA officials consciously tried to minimize the impact of budget reductions on EOS-related science. Starting in 1996, NASA plans to solicit additional Earth science research through a new Earth System Science Pathfinder program. This effort will be based on data sets collected by new satellite missions. According to NASA officials, the Pathfinder program is intended to develop quick turnaround, low-cost space missions for high priority Earth sciences research not being addressed by current programs, including EOS, thus providing an opportunity to accommodate new science priorities and to increase scientific participation in Mission to Planet Earth. The administration is requesting $20 million for Pathfinder in fiscal year 1997 and plans to request $30 million, $75 million, and $75 million for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, respectively—a total of $200 million over the next 4 fiscal years. After then, NASA plans to offset Pathfinder’s funding requirements with reductions generated from the introduction of lower cost technology into future Mission to Planet Earth-related research. Pathfinder’s goal is to launch one mission every year, starting in 1999. NASA estimates the life-cycle cost of each mission would not exceed $120 million and would include the cost of the launch vehicle, civil service labor, investigator support, and 2 years of spacecraft operations.However, NASA has not demonstrated that the potential value of Pathfinder’s science would exceed the potential value of additional EOS-related science, if savings allocated to Pathfinder were allocated to EOS science. NASA criticized our analysis and conclusions. NASA stated that our draft report underestimated the size of the EOS research community and the abilities of EOS investigators to process the large amount of data expected from EOS. We do not agree with NASA’ s description of our report’s focus and scope. Our objective was not to estimate the size of the EOS research or broader user communities, or to assess the abilities of current researchers to handle the large amount of data expected from EOS. Rather, our objective was to assess NASA’s plans for developing its basic research community, with specific focus on the number of currently funded EOS investigations. This issue is the basis for the majority of NASA’s concerns. To address NASA’s point, we revised our final report to clarify the specific focus and scope of our work. NASA said that our analysis of the number of EOS investigations did not consider the broader user community. Although NASA’s statement is correct, it was not the objective of our work to analyze the broader user community. We focused on comparing the number of NASA’s currently funded EOS-related investigations with the number of funded investigations associated with two pre-EOS-era missions. This comparison constituted our analytic framework and formed the basis of our conclusion that the magnitude of potential basic research opportunities afforded by EOS is much greater than those afforded by UARS and TOPEX, but the number of currently funded EOS investigations is relatively small compared to the number of investigations funded under the two pre-EOS-era missions. Our conclusion is consistent with NASA’s desire, as expressed in its comments on our draft report, “to expand the size of the direct EOS community,” and its actions during the course of our review to increase the number of EOS investigations in a budget-constrained environment. NASA’s comments also addressed our concern about its ability to increase the number of EOS investigations based on savings from EOS and other parts of Mission to Planet Earth. NASA stated that it has already made changes to lower EOS’ costs and that it will be able to decrease costs further while improving overall capability and maintaining data continuity. We have not evaluated NASA’s claims in this regard. In our draft report, we recommended that the NASA Administrator provide the Congress with an assessment of Pathfinder’s potential impact on NASA’s strategy for Earth system science research, including a determination that the potential value of Pathfinder’s investigations is expected to exceed the potential value of additional EOS investigations. NASA generally agreed with this recommendation, stating that it would provide a strategic assessment of Pathfinder. NASA also said it planned to proceed with the Pathfinder missions on the basis of already having analyzed the tradeoffs and having had its approach validated by outside review groups. The concern that prompted our recommendation in the draft report was the availability of adequate funding for EOS basic research given NASA’s funding strategy. That continues to be our concern and, in view of NASA’s position, we are changing our recommendation to the NASA Administrator to a matter for congressional consideration. Our purpose in making this change is to alert the Congress to the need to address the EOS funding issue before substantial funding commitments are made to the new Pathfinder program. NASA’s comments are in appendix V. In judging the extent to which it should support the proposed Earth System Science Pathfinder program, the Congress may wish to have NASA demonstrate that the potential value of Pathfinder investigations will exceed the potential value of additional EOS investigations that could be obtained with the same resources. To accomplish our objectives, we obtained documents related to EOS’ science program from and interviewed officials at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C.; NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland; and at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. We attended the EOS Investigators Working Group meeting in June 1995 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and the Payload Panel meeting in November 1995 in Annapolis, Maryland. In analyzing the development of the EOS research community, we reviewed information on pre-EOS Earth science ground- and space-based research, as well as EOS’ interdisciplinary science research. In analyzing the authorship of articles related to UARS and TOPEX/Poseidon, we used “Scisearch,” an international, multidisciplinary index to science literature. Scisearch indexes articles from approximately 4,500 scientific and technical journals. We used the scientists’ progress reports for 1992 to 1993, and 1995 to assess whether changes to EOS have adversely affected EOS’ interdisciplinary research. We performed our work between February 1995 and February 1996 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 the report until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to other appropriate congressional committees; the NASA Administrator; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to other interested parties upon request. Please contact me on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report were Brad Hathaway, Frank Degnan, Thomas Mills, Richard Eiserman, and Richard Irving. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) considers the following measurement sets to be critical to preserving the Earth system science approach of the Earth Observing System (EOS) and important to making environmental policy decisions. The information in appendixes I-IV was derived from NASA sources. The formation, dissipation, and radiative properties of clouds influence the atmosphere’s response to greenhouse forcing (i.e., mechanisms that promote the greenhouse effect). The net effect of cloud forcing and feedback determines the energy budget of Earth and its cozy temperature, which supports life. Earth’s radiation budget drives the biological and physical processes of the atmosphere, land, and ocean, which in turn affect water resources, agriculture, and food production. There is a net outflow of atmospheric moisture from the tropics to the higher latitudes. This redistribution is accomplished through evaporation and precipitation, which determine the freshwater resources for agricultural and industrial development. Tropospheric chemistry is linked to the circulation of Earth’s water (the “hydrologic cycle”), the ecosystem, and transformations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thus determining the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere for cleansing pollutants. Stratospheric chemistry measurements involve chemical reactions, interactions between the sun and the atmosphere, and the sources and sinks of gases, such as ozone, that are critical to Earth’s radiation balance. An aerosol is a fine solid or liquid particle suspended in gas, such as the atmosphere. Aerosols affect the climate through their radiative properties by serving as nuclei for the condensation of clouds. Aerosols tend to cool Earth’s atmosphere, thus offsetting some of the warming effects of greenhouse gases. Along with atmospheric humidity, atmospheric temperature is used in short-term weather prediction and long-term climate monitoring. Improved measurement accuracy, precision, and spatial and temporal coverage will enhance weather prediction skills beyond current limits and reduce weather prediction “busts,” or failures. See “Atmospheric Temperature.” Lightning measurements will include the distribution and variability of both cloud-to-cloud and cloud-to-ground lightning. Electrical discharge contributes to the formation and dissipation of certain trace gases in the atmosphere. Sustained changes in the total radiation output from the sun could contribute to significant climate changes on Earth over time. Solar radiation is the main source of energy for biological activities on Earth. Out of the entire spectrum of radiation that Earth receives from the sun, the ultraviolet portion is the dominant energy source for the Earth’s atmosphere. Small changes in the radiation field have an important effect on atmospheric temperature, chemistry, structure, and dynamics. Excess ultraviolet energy on the Earth’s surface is harmful to living organisms. Land use includes monitoring crops for efficient irrigation and pest control, public lands for good stewardship, and urban areas for development. Some changes in land use, such as deforestation and biomass burning, reduce the standing stock of vegetation, release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and reduce the capacity for the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Terrestrial vegetation absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide by photosynthesis to offset its greenhouse warming effect. Terrestrial surface temperature controls the formation and distribution of atmospheric water vapor and also contributes to the determination of cloud amount. In addition, surface temperatures control the biological activity and health of agricultural fields, forests, and other natural ecosystems. Biomass burning releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and also increases concentrations of other harmful gases, such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Land cover monitoring can be used to assess potential fire hazards and monitor fire recovery in natural ecosystems. The volcanic ejection of aerosols and particulates into the atmosphere can increase precipitation and ozone destruction and cause the lowering of global temperatures. Volcanic activities also contribute to the formation of continents. Surface wetness controls the availability of fresh water resources for agricultural and industrial activities. Sea surface temperature measurements are important to understanding heat exchange between the ocean and the atmosphere. Such an understanding will contribute to the development of accurate general circulation models, which enhance our understanding of seasonal and interannual climate variations that contribute to hurricanes, floods, and other natural hazards. Planktonic marine organisms and dissolved organic matter play a major role in the carbon cycle, as they incorporate, or “fix,” about as much carbon as land plants. This contributes to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and to offsetting the greenhouse effect. Surface winds over the oceans contribute to ocean circulation and the interaction between the air and sea, which affect short-term and long-term climate variations. Sea height and ocean circulation are related. Ocean circulation transports water, heat, salt, and chemicals around the planet. Accurate information about these circulation patterns should contribute to understanding the oceans’ impact on weather, climate, and marine life, and thus the fisheries industry and other maritime commerce. Measurements of the polar ice caps, including ice sheet elevation and ice volume, will determine the contribution of the ice sheets to sea-level variation. These data will also contribute to understanding the role of the polar ice caps in Earth’s freshwater and energy budgets, as well as climate fluctuations. Measurements of the extent and thickness of sea ice will help determine atmospheric warming. Sea ice measurements will also be useful to operational ice forecasting centers, thus affecting maritime commerce. Snow cover, extent, and duration determine fresh water resources, especially in Alpine regions of the world. Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) monitors the variability of total solar irradiance. Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) measures atmospheric temperature and humidity. AMSR (Japan) Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR) observes atmospheric and oceanic water vapor profiles and determines precipitation, water vapor distribution, cloud water, sea surface temperature, sea ice, and sea surface wind speed. Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) measures atmospheric temperature. ASTER (Japan) Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) provides high spatial resolution images of the land surface, water, ice, and clouds. Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) measures Earth’s radiation budget and atmospheric radiation. DFA (France) Dual Frequency Altimeter (DFA) maps the topography of the sea surface and its impact on ocean circulation. Earth Observing Scanning Polarimeter (EOSP) globally maps radiance and linear polarization of reflected and scattered sunlight to measure atmospheric aerosols. Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) provides high spatial resolution images of the land surface, water, ice, and clouds. Geoscience Laser Altimeter System (GLAS) measures ice sheet topography, cloud heights, and aerosol vertical structure. HIRDLS (UK-US) High-Resolution Dynamics Limb Sounder (HIRDLS) observes gases and aerosols in the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere to assess their role in the global climate system. Landsat Advanced Technology Instrument (LATI) provides high spatial resolution images of the land surface, water, ice, and clouds beyond Landsat ETM+. Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS) measures the distribution and variability of lightning. Microwave Humidity Sounder (MHS) provides atmospheric water vapor profiles. Multi-Angle Imaging Spectroradiometer (MISR) measures the top-of-the-atmosphere, cloud, and surface angular reflectance. Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) measures chemistry from the upper troposphere to the lower thermosphere. (continued) Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) studies biological and physical processes in the atmosphere, the oceans, and on land. MOPITT (Canada) Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) measures upwelling radiance to produce tropospheric carbon monoxide profiles and total column methane. Microwave Radiometer (MR) provides atmospheric water vapor measurements for DFA. ODUS (Japan) Ozone Dynamics Ultraviolet Spectrometer (ODUS) measures total column ozone. Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment III (SAGE III) provides profiles of aerosols, ozone, and trace gases in the mesosphere, stratosphere, and troposphere. Provides all-weather measurements of ocean surface wind speed and direction. Solar Stellar Irradiance Comparison Experiment (SOLSTICE) measures full-disk solar ultraviolet irradiance. Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) provides profiles of all infrared active species from Earth’s surface to the lower stratosphere. Mission continues Landsat land-imaging satellite series. Future Landsat-type instrument is planned for AM-2 and AM-3. Morning equator-crossing mission (AM series) will study clouds, aerosols, and radiation balance; the terrestrial ecosystem; land use; soils; terrestrial energy/moisture; tropospheric chemical composition; volcanoes; and ocean productivity. ASTER and MOPITT will be on AM-1 only. EOSP and LATI will be on AM-2 and AM-3 only. Afternoon equator-crossing mission (PM series) will study cloud formation, precipitation, and radiative properties; air-sea fluxes of energy and moisture; sea-ice extent; and ocean primary productivity. The PM series will carry prototypes of future operational weather satellite instruments. Chemistry mission (CHEM series) will study atmospheric chemical composition; chemistry-climate interactions; and air-sea exchange of chemicals and energy. ODUS will be on CHEM-1 only. A later CHEM flight may include SAGE III. Laser altimeter mission (LaserALT series) will study ice sheet mass balance. Radar altimeter mission (RadarALT series) will study ocean circulation. RadarALT is a joint mission with France. SAGE III instrument carried on International Space Station (ISS) and Russian Meteor satellite will study distribution of aerosols, ozone profiles, and greenhouse gases in the lower stratosphere. Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) will study precipitation and Earth radiation budget in the tropics and high latitudes. TRMM is a joint mission with Japan. Japanese Advanced Earth Observing System II (ADEOS II) satellite carrying NASA scatterometer instrument will study ocean surface wind vectors. Mission will monitor the variability of total solar irradiance and is currently planned to fly on a series of small satellites. Mission will study Earth’s radiation budget and atmospheric radiation. Mission will study full-disk solar ultraviolet irradiance. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Timeline bars denote periods during which at least one copy of the indicated instrument is in orbit. EOS science objectives are listed below, along with the interdisciplinary investigations designed to address them. These investigations are intended to cross discipline boundaries, and therefore, address more than one science objective. The Water and Energy Cycles objective covers the formation, dissipation, and radiative properties of clouds, which influence the atmosphere’s response to greenhouse forcing. In addition, Water and Energy Cycles include large-scale hydrology and moisture processes, such as precipitation and evaporation. National Center for Atmospheric Research Project to Interface Modeling on Global and Regional Scales With EOS Observations. This investigation is intended to use surface and atmospheric data sources to improve climate models and their predictions of global change. Components of climate models to be addressed include surface-atmosphere interactions, the hydrologic cycle, global energy balance, cloud and aerosol radiative fields, and atmospheric chemical cycles. Climate Processes Over the Oceans. Climate is strongly influenced by the amount and distribution of water vapor, liquid water, and ice suspended in the atmosphere. This atmospheric water, and the climate over land areas, is largely controlled by processes occurring over the oceans. This investigation will improve modeling of both the atmosphere and its interactions with the ocean. It will address the roles of circulation, clouds, radiation, water vapor, and precipitation in climate change as well as the role of ocean-atmosphere interactions in the energy and water cycles. Hydrologic Processes and Climate Interdisciplinary Investigation. The global water and energy cycles link the atmosphere, land, and ocean. In addition, water supports life and plays a crucial role in climate regulation. This investigation is to enhance our understanding of the physical processes that affect these cycles. The Processing, Evaluation, and Impact on Numerical Weather Prediction of AIRS, AMSU, and MODIS Data in the Tropics and Southern Hemisphere. This investigation involves the development of algorithms and techniques to improve atmospheric science, specifically numerical weather prediction models, using three EOS instruments. Investigation of the Atmosphere-Ocean-Land System Related to Climate Processes. The atmosphere, ocean, and land interact with each other through the exchanges of heat energy, momentum, and water substance. These interactions influence climate. This investigation will examine the atmosphere-ocean-land system by pursuing seven supporting studies that will involve both observations and modeling. The Development and Use of a Four-Dimensional Atmospheric-Ocean-Land Data Assimilation System for EOS. This investigation will incorporate all available data, from a variety of sources, into a single model of the Earth system. This model can then be used to project the Earth system beyond the range of actual observations, estimate expected values of observations to assess instrument quality, provide products for environmental studies, and supplement observations by estimating quantities that are difficult or impossible to observe. An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System: Analysis. This investigation will examine the role of clouds and radiative energy balance in the climate system. Studies include cloud feedback mechanisms that can greatly modify the response of the climate system to increased greenhouse gases. The Oceans objective covers the exchange of energy, water, and chemicals between the ocean and atmosphere, and between the upper layers of the ocean and the deep ocean. Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean Processes and Primary Production in the Southern Oceans. The southern ocean plays an important role in both the carbon cycle and heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. This investigation will focus on developing predictive models so we can better understand the effects of changes in the physical forcing of the ocean (e.g., small shifts in the location of westerly wind systems may affect ocean processes). Biogeochemical Fluxes at the Ocean/Atmosphere Interface. Solar radiation impinging on the oceans creates chemical, physical, and biological effects. One result is the creation of gases, such as carbon dioxide, dimethyl-sulfide, and carbon monoxide, which are then circulated by wind and water. This investigation will develop models to better understand these gases and the influence of oceanic processes upon them. Interdisciplinary Studies of the Relationships Between Climate, Ocean Circulation, Biological Processes, and Renewable Marine Resources. This investigation will study (1) the ocean’s role in climate change, particularly in the Australian region; (2) the influence of the carbon cycle in Australia’s waters on the global carbon cycle; and (3) changes in Australian oceanography and the implications for marine ecosystems, including commercial fisheries. The Role of Air-Sea Exchanges and Ocean Circulation in Climate Variability. Exchanges of water, momentum, and heat at the interface of the ocean and atmosphere drive the transport and change the storage of heat, water, and greenhouse gases, thus moderating the world’s climate. This investigation will study these exchanges and ocean circulation in order to improve our understanding of natural global changes and enable us to discern human-induced effects. Polar Exchange at the Sea Surface: the Interaction of Ocean, Ice, and Atmosphere. This is an investigation of energy exchanges in Earth’s polar regions, both at the atmosphere-ice-ocean interface and lower latitudes. It will study the role these processes play in global oceanic and atmospheric circulation and help improve our understanding of whether polar regions show any sign of climate change. Middle and High Latitude Oceanic Variability Study. This investigation will examine the variability of the atmosphere’s influence on the oceans, the effect on the oceanic response, and the resulting effect on biological productivity in the oceans. The study will focus on the mid- to high-latitude regions of the oceans. It will examine changes in the surface fluxes of momentum, heat, water, and radiation, as well as the variability of ocean circulation and biological activity. Earth System Dynamics: the Determination and Interpretation of the Global Angular Momentum Budget Using EOS. Momentum and mass transport among the atmosphere, oceans, and solid Earth produce changes in the planet’s rotation and gravity field. Predictions of these changes based on the mass and motion of air and water can be compared with observations to improve models of the interactions of the oceans, atmosphere, and solid Earth. This investigation will examine these interactions as represented by the exchange of angular momentum, mass, and energy among these components. The Chemistry of the Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere objective includes links to the hydrologic cycle and ecosystems, transformations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and interactions inducing climate change. Interannual Variability of the Global Carbon, Energy, and Hydrologic Cycles. Analysis of the carbon, energy, and water cycles may increase the predictability of climate change. The goals of this investigation are to (1) understand contemporary climate variability and trends and (2) contribute to our ability to predict the impact of human activities on the climate. Changes in Biogeochemical Cycles. Models of biogeochemical cycles can be used to project the interactions of atmospheric composition, climate, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, ocean circulation and sea level, and human-induced effects. This investigation will develop models and databases to describe the dynamics of water, carbon, nitrogen, and trace gases over seasonal-to-century time scales. The Land Surface Hydrology and Ecosystem Processes objective covers sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, the exchange of moisture and energy between the land surface and atmosphere, and changes in land cover. Investigations in this category could result in improved estimates of runoff over the land surface and into the oceans. Global Water Cycle: Extension Across the Earth Sciences. The global water cycle stimulates, regulates, and responds to the other components of the Earth system on regional and global scales. This investigation is aimed at developing a hierarchy of models, using EOS data, that will contribute to our understanding of cloud cover and radiative transfer, as well as energy and moisture changes at the interface of the atmosphere with the oceans, cryosphere, and land surface. These models will contribute to the prediction of changes in water balance and climate. Long-Term Monitoring of the Amazon Ecosystems Through EOS: From Patterns to Processes. Natural and human-induced changes in the Amazon are expected to disrupt regional vegetation distributions, alter the physical and chemical characteristics of the continental river system, and change regional hydroclimatology, possibly influencing global climate patterns. The aim of this investigation is to understand the circulation of water, sediment, and nutrients through the basin. Northern Biosphere Observation and Modeling Experiment. Natural and human-induced climate changes in the northern latitudes will affect terrestrial ecosystems, and feedbacks from these changing systems will influence the climate. The goal of this study is to better understand the relationship between the climate and northern ecosystems over a range of spatial scales. Hydrology, Hydrochemical Modeling, and Remote Sensing in Seasonally Snow-Covered Alpine Drainage Basins. Seasonally snow-covered Alpine regions are important to the hydrologic cycle, as they are a major source of water for runoff, ground water recharge, and agriculture. This investigation will monitor conditions in Alpine basins and develop models to better understand the cycling of water, chemicals, and nutrients in these areas. Climate, Erosion, and Tectonics in Mountain Systems. In mountain belts, climatic and tectonic processes produce Earth’s highest rates of weathering and erosion. Alpine regions are important to downstream hydrology, providing both inorganic and organic material to lowland areas. This investigation will observe the effects of climate changes on Alpine land processes and develop models to improve our understanding of these interactions. The Hydrologic Cycle and Climatic Processes in Arid and Semiarid Lands. Knowledge of the hydrologic cycle will help scientists predict the effects of natural and human-induced climate change. This investigation will study the hydrologic cycle and climatic processes in arid and semiarid lands, where agricultural productivity is especially sensitive to changes in the cycle. Using Multi-Sensor Data to Model Factors Limiting Carbon Balance in Global Arid and Semiarid Land. This investigation will address the role of arid and semiarid lands in processes affecting the global environment, such as the production and consumption of trace gases. It will also examine the vulnerability of these lands to climate change in terms of productivity and soil quality, and develop predictive models of ecosystem function for dry lands. Biosphere-Atmosphere Interactions. This investigation is to improve our understanding of the role of the terrestrial biosphere in global change. It will cover short-term interactions between the land and atmosphere, such as biophysics, as well as long-term interactions, such as ecology and human-induced impacts. The goal of the investigation is to understand and predict the response of the biosphere-atmosphere system to global change, specifically to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Glaciers and Polar Ice Sheet measurements could contribute to predictions of sea level and global water balance. Use of the Cryospheric System to Monitor Global Change in Canada. The cryosphere is an important component of the global climate system, and better understanding of cryospheric processes may improve global climate models. This investigation seeks to understand cryospheric variations, develop models that will improve our knowledge of the role of the cryosphere in the climate system, and use various cryospheric data sets to support climate monitoring and model development. The Chemistry of the Middle and Upper Stratosphere objective includes chemical reactions, solar-atmosphere relations, and sources and sinks of radiatively important gases. Observational and Modeling Studies of Radiative, Chemical, and Dynamical Interactions on the Earth’s Atmosphere. Understanding the circulation, transformations, and sources and sinks of gases, such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons, is important in dealing with the issues of global warming, ozone depletion, and the coupling of atmospheric chemistry and climate. This investigation seeks to improve our understanding of the fundamental processes influencing these gases in the atmosphere and contribute to the development of a predictive capability for global change studies. Chemical, Dynamical, and Radiative Interactions Through the Middle Atmosphere and Thermosphere. Carbon dioxide and ozone play important radiative roles in the middle atmosphere. Ozone absorbs ultraviolet radiation, heating the middle atmosphere and shielding the biosphere from dangerous ultraviolet dosages. The interactions of other gases, as well as temperature and middle atmosphere circulation, affect ozone. This investigation will improve our understanding of interactions in the middle atmosphere and our ability to predict long-term atmospheric trends. Investigation of the Chemical and Dynamical Changes in the Stratosphere. Chemical changes in the atmosphere are occurring largely as a result of changes in the surface emission of trace gases. This investigation will focus on the response of ozone to trace gas changes, isolating natural from human-induced changes to determine their effects on ozone and to assess radiative and dynamical feedbacks. The Solid Earth objective deals with volcanoes and their role in climate change. A Global Assessment of Active Volcanism, Volcanic Hazards, and Volcanic Inputs to the Atmosphere from EOS. The injection of material from volcanoes into the atmosphere can affect the local or hemispheric climate. This investigation will improve our understanding of the processes behind volcanic eruptions; study the injection of sulfur dioxide, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases into the atmosphere; and place eruptions into the context of the regional tectonic setting of the volcano. The following are GAO’s comments on NASA’s letter dated May 17, 1996. Investigations to begin in 1996 cannot depend solely on data from EOS instruments because the earliest launch dates are planned for 1997 (for ) and 1998 (for EOS-AM-1). Instead, research plans should be based on use of existing data sets . . . or expected data from relevant near-term (1996-1997) satellite missions and field experiments. 8. Our draft report discussed the 1995-96 peer review, noting that the review could lead to possible deselection and recompetition of some EOS science teams. 9. We incorporated the amount of funds involved in the program into the report’s text. 10. We included NASA’s current estimate of planned EOS spending through fiscal year 2000 in the report’s text. 11. We revised our report to include NASA’s comments about lower program baseline costs and its confidence that it will decrease costs further. 12. We deleted the material NASA is referring to. 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 National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) plans for funding its Earth Observing System (EOS) and developing EOS-related basic research, focusing on: (1) the current number of EOS science investigations; (2) researchers' views on whether changes to EOS have adversely affected their ability to carry out their interdisciplinary earth sciences investigations; and (3) the Earth System Science Pathfinder program and its potential impact on future EOS investigations. GAO found that: (1) NASA funds 29 interdisciplinary science investigations that use data from EOS instruments in more than one earth science discipline; (2) to expand the EOS research community, NASA plans to maintain an open data access policy, add investigations, reevaluate current science investigations, and recruit new investigators; (3) most EOS interdisciplinary scientists believe that EOS budgetary reductions have little or no effect on their work; and (4) NASA plans to use anticipated savings resulting from improved technology to fund more investigations and request a total of $200 million over the next 4 fiscal years for its Earth System Science Pathfinder program. |
Ed Koch, the legendary three-term mayor of New York City between 1978 and 1989, discusses signature moments from his long political career and city life in an interview recorded in 2012. He died on Friday morning in Manhattan at 88 years old. Photo: AP
Ed Koch, a feisty and witty, Bronx-born Democrat who won three terms as mayor of New York and developed into an international personality, oversaw the city's financial recovery in the late 1970s only to see it shudder a decade later in the face of AIDS and a crack-cocaine epidemic.
As mayor, Mr. Koch, who died at age 88 Friday in New York, hosted heads of state and used City Hall as a bully pulpit to advocate for foreign-policy priorities, particularly those supportive of Israel.
New York faced myriad difficulties when Mr. Koch joined a crowded field of Democratic rivals running for mayor in 1977. High crime and a five-borough blackout followed by looting that summer made it seem nearly ungovernable, and a serial killer who called himself "Son of Sam" was at large. Arson then flared in the Bronx as the Yankees defeated the Los Angeles Dodgers in the World Series. Worst of all, the city's finances were still in crisis after a brush with default in 1975.
Timeline Ed Koch: Giant of New York City Politics
View Slideshow ©Warner Bros/courtesy Everett Collection / Everett Collection ?Warner Bros/courtesy Everett Collection / Everett Collection Mr. Koch stayed in the limelight after he left City Hall, working as a judge on the television program 'The People's Court.' He is pictured here in 1998.
Mr. Koch, who earlier in the race had polled 2%, harnessed a so-called "blackout backlash" to defeat incumbent mayor Abe Beame and archrival Mario Cuomo and win the election.
Edward Irving Koch balanced the city's budget, restored its credit and helped revive the confidence of New Yorkers. Over 12 years in office, he replaced the patronage appointment of judges with a system of merit selection— a reform he called his proudest achievement—and launched $5.1 billion in city-funded affordable-housing construction, rebuilding neighborhoods gutted by arson.
In a 2012 interview with Ed Koch, the former NYC mayor talked about his pride in being Jewish, the killing of WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl and anti-Semitism worldwide.
"His love of the city, I think, is what made him a great mayor," said Mr. Cuomo, who later beat Mr. Koch in the 1982 race for governor. "It gave him a force, a special force that enabled him to work harder…and do more than most mayors could do."
Mr. Koch's headstone, placed at Trinity Church Cemetery in upper Manhattan, is inscribed with the words of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, spoken shortly before he was killed in 2002 by militants in Pakistan: "My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish." Mr. Koch, who described himself as a secular Jew, said he selected the quote because "that's me, too."
Mr. Koch's father, a furrier from Poland, lost his business in the Depression and moved the family to Newark, N.J. His son was drafted at 19 into the Army in World War II, earning two battle stars. He later studied at New York University School of Law and went into private practice.
Mr. Koch got his start in New York City politics in the early 1960s as a reform Democrat, ousting Carmine DeSapio, the head of Tammany Hall, from his position as Democratic district leader in a party primary in Manhattan's Greenwich Village. He was elected to the City Council in 1966 and two years later was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, serving for nine years.
Enlarge Image Close Anthony DelMundo for The Wall Street Journal Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch died Friday at 88.
On Friday mornings, he would stand at subway stations, handing out literature. People rushed right past him. He recalled: "And then serendipitously one day I said, 'I'm Ed Koch. I'm your congressman. How'm I doing?' And people stopped to tell me!"
Mr. Koch said he was by nature shy, but as mayor he developed a style that was boisterous and blunt, offering stories that made people laugh. "The mayor is not a coward—and the mayor is also not a schmuck," Mr. Koch said when he refused to pose for a photo with a tiger.
"He was New York," said John LoCicero, a chief political aide for Mr. Koch and a longtime friend
Enlarge Image Close Rob Bennett for The Wall Street Journal Ed Koch beamed when Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed legislation in April 2011 renaming the Queensboro Bridge between Manhattan and Queens the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge in honor of the city's 105th mayor.
Mr. Koch's sexual orientation, which he refused to discuss publicly, became a point of discussion in his career, including during the AIDS crisis and during the 1977 mayoral primary, when a campaign poster appeared with an anti-gay slogan. Mr. Koch maintained that responding would legitimize the question and could lead to discrimination against gay people in states where discrimination because of sexual orientation hadn't been outlawed. "I take the position, 'It's none of your business,'" he said.
One of his political high points came on the first morning of a public-transit strike in 1980. As the mayor plotted strategy he looked out the window and saw thousands of people walking across the Brooklyn Bridge. He rushed to join them, shouting, "Walk over the bridge! We're not going to let these b— bring us to our knees!" The labor dispute was resolved 10 days later, with transit workers receiving a pay raise far less than they initially demanded. Mr. Koch's hard line helped him in later negotiations with New York's police, fire and sanitation workers.
His third term was overshadowed by municipal corruption scandals, though Mr. Koch wasn't directly implicated. Still, toward the end of his mayoralty, one community after another seemed to turn on him. Blacks were alienated by his remark that Jews would have to be "crazy" to vote for presidential hopeful Rev. Jesse Jackson. The Irish voters were outraged when he visited Northern Ireland and lauded British troops there for "safeguarding the peace."
Enlarge Image Close Associated Press As mayor in 1981, Mr. Koch gestured as he marched in a Labor Day parade along New York's Fifth Avenue.
After his failure to win a fourth term, Mr. Koch remained a public figure, writing novels and memoirs, reviewing movies and serving as a television judge on "The People's Court." Always weight-conscious, he became a spokesman for the UltraSlimFast diet program—and for Dunkin' Donuts. A documentary about the former mayor, called "Koch," opened Friday in theaters in New York.
Mr. Koch carried on a political feud with New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and lobbied New York state government for ethics reform. In 2011, he helped get a Republican congressman elected in New York as rebuke to the Democratic Party's stance on Israel.
Even when his passions ran against public opinion, he was tolerated. He had attained the status of a cranky but beloved elder statesman.
—Stephen Miller contributed to this article.
Write to Jennifer Maloney at [email protected]
A version of this article appeared February 2, 2013, on page A5 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: From New York's 'Mr. Mayor,' Quips Even in Crisis. ||||| Edward I. Koch, the master showman of City Hall, who parlayed shrewd political instincts and plenty of chutzpah into three tumultuous terms as New York’s mayor with all the tenacity, zest and combativeness that personified his city of golden dreams, died Friday. He was 88.
Mr. Koch’s spokesman, George Arzt, said he died of congestive heart failure at 2 a.m. at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia hospital.
The former mayor had experienced coronary and other medical problems since leaving office in 1989. But he had been in relatively good health despite — or perhaps because of — his whirlwind life as a television judge, radio talk-show host, author, law partner, newspaper columnist, movie reviewer, professor, commercial pitchman and political gadfly.
Ebullient, flitting from broadcast studios to luncheon meetings and speaking engagements, popping up at show openings and news conferences, wherever the microphones were live and the cameras rolling, Mr. Koch, in his life after politics, seemed for all the world like the old campaigner, running flat out.
Only his bouts of illness slowed Mr. Koch, most recently forcing him to miss a screening on Tuesday of “Koch,” a documentary biographical film that opened in New York City on Friday.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg praised him as “an irrepressible icon, our most charismatic cheerleader and champion,” calling him “a great mayor, a great man and a great friend.”
Mr. Koch’s 12-year mayoralty encompassed the fiscal austerity of the late 1970s and the racial conflicts and municipal corruption scandals of the 1980s, an era of almost continuous discord that found Mr. Koch caught in a maelstrom day after day.
But out among the people or facing a news media circus in the Blue Room at City Hall, he was a feisty, slippery egoist who could not be pinned down by questioners and who could outtalk anybody in the authentic voice of New York: as opinionated as a Flatbush cabby, as loud as the scrums on 42nd Street, as pugnacious as a West Side reform Democrat mother.
“I’m the sort of person who will never get ulcers,” the mayor — eyebrows devilishly up, grinning wickedly at his own wit — enlightened the reporters at his $475 rent-controlled apartment in Greenwich Village on Inauguration Day in 1978. “Why? Because I say exactly what I think. I’m the sort of person who might give other people ulcers.”
His political odyssey took him from independent-minded liberal to pragmatic conservative, from street-corner hustings with a little band of reform Democrats in Greenwich Village to the pinnacle of power as the city’s 105th mayor from Jan. 1, 1978, to Dec. 31, 1989. Along the way, he put an end to the career of the Tammany boss Carmine G. De Sapio and served two years as a councilman and nine more in Congress representing, with distinction, the East Side of Manhattan.
With his trademark — “How’m I doin?” — Mr. Koch stood at subway entrances on countless mornings wringing the hands and votes of constituents, who gave him 21 electoral victories in 26 years, with only three defeats: a forgettable 1962 State Assembly race; a memorable 1982 primary in a race for governor won by Mario M. Cuomo; and a last Koch hurrah, a Democratic primary in 1989 won by David N. Dinkins, who would be his one-term successor.
Led New York Into Prosperity
In retrospect, how did he do?
By the usual standards of measuring a former mayor’s legacy — the city he inherited, the challenges he faced, the resources available to meet those challenges and the extent to which his work endured beyond his term — historians and political experts generally give Mr. Koch mixed-to-good reviews.
Most important, he is credited with leading the city government back from near bankruptcy in the 1970s to prosperity in the 1980s. He also began one of the city’s most ambitious housing programs, which continued after he left office and eventually built or rehabilitated more than 200,000 housing units, revitalizing once-forlorn neighborhoods.
Politically, Mr. Koch’s move to the right of center was seen as a betrayal by some old liberal friends, but it gained him the middle class and three terms in City Hall. He was also the harbinger of a transformation in the way mayors are elected in New York, with candidates relying less on the old coalition of labor unions, minority leaders and Democratic clubhouses and more on heavy campaign spending and television to make direct appeals to a more independent-minded electorate.
In the end, however, he was overwhelmed by corruption scandals in his administration and by racial divisions that his critics contended he sometimes made worse.
Mr. Koch, for whom the headline “Hizzoner” seemed to have been coined, was a bachelor who lived for politics. Perhaps inevitably there were rumors, some promoted by his enemies, that he was gay. But no proof was offered, and, except for two affirmations in radio interviews that he was heterosexual, he responded to the rumors with silence or a rebuke. “Whether I am straight or gay or bisexual is nobody’s business but mine,” he wrote in “Citizen Koch,” his 1992 autobiography.
Mr. Koch was New York’s most colorful mayor since Fiorello H. La Guardia. Tall, squinty-eyed, baldish, with a nimbus of gray and a U-shape smile more satanic than cherubic, Mr. Koch told a story like a raconteur in a deli, kvetching and ah-hahing with the timing of a Catskill comic. He loved to clown for photographers on the streets of New York, on a camel in Egypt or on a mechanized sweeper in China.
His image on television, his high-pitched voice on the radio, his round shoulders and gangly arms and baggy pants, and especially his streetwise gusts of candor — saying what people said over the dinner table in Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn — gave New Yorkers the illusion that he was a rumpled, familiar acquaintance. But for all his self-promoting stream of consciousness, he was an intensely private man who revealed little about himself and had no patience for introspection.
Even at the small dinner parties he gave for close political associates and inner-circle friends, whether at Gracie Mansion or in his postmayoral apartment at 2 Fifth Avenue, there were few real intimacies, some participants recalled. The conversations were eclectic, a dance of politics, public affairs and Mr. Koch’s city of art and culture.
His first term, students of government say, was his best. Confronted with the deficits and the constraints of the city’s brush with bankruptcy in 1975, he held down spending, subdued the municipal unions, restored the city’s creditworthiness, revived a moribund capital budget, began work on long-neglected bridges and streets, cut antipoverty programs and tried to reduce the friction between Manhattan and the more tradition-minded other boroughs.
Re-elected in 1981 with 75 percent of the vote — he became the first mayor in the city’s history to get both the Democratic and the Republican nominations — Mr. Koch markedly improved the city’s finances in his second term. Helped by a surging local economy, state aid and rising tax revenues, the city government, with a $500 million surplus, rehired workers and restored many municipal services. He also made plans for major housing programs, improvements in education and efforts to reduce welfare dependency.
A Troubled Third Term
Mr. Koch, riding a huge crest of popularity, was elected in 1985 to a third term, with an amazing 78 percent of the vote. Only two other mayors in modern times, La Guardia and Robert F. Wagner Jr., had achieved third terms, and both found them to be quagmires.
For Mr. Koch, the storm clouds had already begun to gather.
Less than two weeks after Mr. Koch’s inauguration, his ally Donald R. Manes, the Queens borough president, attempted suicide — he succeeded two months later — in a troubling prelude to one of the worst corruption scandals in city history.
What followed was a series of disclosures, indictments and convictions for bribery, extortion, perjury and conspiracy that touched various city agencies. Much of the skulduggery centered on the Transportation Department and the Parking Violations Bureau. Stanley M. Friedman and Meade H. Esposito — the Democratic bosses in the Bronx and Brooklyn, respectively, and Koch supporters — were convicted. Mr. Friedman went to prison, and Mr. Esposito, who was in ill health, received a suspended two-year sentence and a fine.
Anthony R. Ameruso, the transportation commissioner, was forced to resign, and the scandal snared businessmen, lawyers, parking meter attendants, sewer inspectors and others. Scores of convictions were obtained by the United States attorney in Manhattan, Rudolph W. Giuliani.
No one accused Mr. Koch of any wrongdoing. Most of the accused were not his appointees, and none were senior advisers; he had always kept a distance from his commissioners, letting them run their departments with relative independence.
Mr. Koch said that he was shocked, that he had been blindsided by subordinates and associates whose schemes he could not possibly have divined. He always said he had befriended Mr. Friedman, Mr. Esposito, Mr. Manes and others because they controlled votes that could make or break legislation he wanted approved or killed.
But critics said Mr. Koch had become too close to the Democratic bosses in pursuit of his own ambitions, and accusations of complacency and cronyism dogged him for the rest of his tenure.
Mr. Koch was also harshly criticized for what was called his slow, inadequate response to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. Hundreds of New Yorkers were desperately ill and dying in a baffling public health emergency. (By the end of his mayoralty, more than 5,000 AIDS patients had died in New York City.) Critics, especially in the gay community, accused him of being a closeted gay man reluctant to confront the crisis for fear of being exposed.
For years, Mr. Koch was upset and defensive about the criticism. In a 1994 interview with Adam Nagourney, a New York Times correspondent and co-author, with Dudley Clendinen, of “Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America,” Mr. Koch said that New York had done more than San Francisco for people with AIDS. “But that never got through to the gay community,” Mr. Koch said. “They were brainwashed that they were getting shortchanged in New York City and in San Francisco they were getting everything. And it wasn’t true, but you could never convince them.”
The scandals and the scourges of crack cocaine, homelessness and AIDS were compounded by a widening rift between Mr. Koch and black New Yorkers. The mayor traced his contentious relationship with black leaders to his first-term decision to close Sydenham Hospital in Harlem, where, he said, the city was paying too much for inadequate care. He would regret the decision.
“It was the wrong thing to do,” Mr. Koch, who rarely second-guessed himself, said in 2009. Closing the hospital saved $9 million, he said, but “there was such a psychological attachment to Sydenham, because black doctors couldn’t get into other hospitals — it was the psychological attachment that I violated.”
Black leaders were also unhappy with Mr. Koch’s decision to purge antipoverty programs and comments he made that they considered insensitive. He said, for example, that busing and racial quotas had done more to divide the races than to achieve integration, and that Jews would be “crazy” to vote for the Rev. Jesse Jackson in his 1988 presidential campaign after Mr. Jackson’s 1984 reference to New York as “Hymietown” and his call for a Palestinian homeland in Israel.
In a city where minorities had long held grievances against a largely white police force, Mr. Koch’s 1983 appointment of Benjamin Ward as New York’s first black police commissioner hardly appeased critics, and a series of ugly episodes came to symbolize mounting racial troubles.
In 1984, a white officer with a shotgun killed a black woman, Eleanor Bumpurs, 66, as she was being evicted from her Bronx apartment; he was acquitted. In 1986, a gang of white teenagers assaulted three black men in Howard Beach, Queens, chasing one, Michael Griffith, to his death on a highway. And in 1989, a black youth, Yusuf K. Hawkins, 16, who went to Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, to see a used car, was attacked by white youths and shot dead.
Mr. Hawkins’s death came just a month before Mr. Koch faced Mr. Dinkins, the Manhattan borough president and the only black candidate, in the 1989 Democratic primary. By then, City Hall was lurching from crisis to crisis. The racial divisions, the corruption scandals, the failures to cope with crack and homelessness all contributed to a sense it was time for a change. Mr. Dinkins, pledging to bring the city together again in a “gorgeous mosaic,” narrowly defeated Mr. Koch in the primary and went on to beat Mr. Giuliani, who ran on the Republican and Liberal lines, by a slender margin in the general election.
“I was defeated because of longevity, not because Yusuf Hawkins was murdered six weeks before the election, although that was a factor,” Mr. Koch wrote in New York magazine. “People get tired of you. So they decided to throw me out. And so help me God, as the numbers were coming in, I said to myself, ‘I’m free at last.’ ”
Son of Immigrants
Edward Irving Koch was born in Crotona Park East in the Bronx on Dec. 12, 1924, the second of three children of Louis and Joyce Silpe Koch, Polish Jews who had immigrated to New York separately in the early 1900s. Louis was a furrier and a partner in a shop until it folded in the Depression in 1931.
The family then moved to Newark, sharing an apartment with Louis’s brother, who ran a catering business. At age 9, Edward, like his humbled father, began working for his uncle in a hat-and-coat-check concession. He later worked as a delicatessen clerk and went to South Side High School in Newark.
One day, when he was 13 and vacationing in the Catskills, he leapt into a lake, swam out and saved his sister, Pat, 6, from drowning. Though a B student, he was president of his school debating society. While his brother, Harold, was athletic, Edward pursued stamp collecting and photography.
After Edward’s graduation in 1941, the Koches, back on their feet in the fur business, moved to Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn. For the next two years, the young man went to City College in Manhattan and worked as a shoe salesman.
He was drafted into the wartime Army in 1943 and earned two battle stars in Europe as an infantryman. After V-E Day, because he could speak German, he was sent to Bavaria to help remove Nazi public officials from their jobs and find non-Nazis to take their place. He was a sergeant when discharged in 1946.
After the war, he moved back in with his parents but did not return to undergraduate studies. (City College awarded him a bachelor’s degree in 1981.) Instead, he went to law school at New York University. He received his law degree in 1948, was admitted to the bar in 1949 and over the next 20 years practiced law in New York City, becoming a founding partner of Koch, Lankenau, Schwartz & Kovner in 1963.
Mr. Koch began his life in politics in 1952 as a street-corner speaker for Adlai E. Stevenson, who lost the presidential election to Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1956, already in his 30s, Mr. Koch moved out of his parents’ home, took an apartment in Greenwich Village and joined the Village Independent Democrats, a club opposed to Mr. De Sapio and the Manhattan Democratic organization known as Tammany Hall.
Mr. De Sapio, a power broker whose dark glasses gave him a sinister air, could make or break legislators, judges, even mayors. But as district leader in Greenwich Village, he had a narrow base. He had lost his post in 1961 to a reformer, James Lanigan. But it was Mr. Koch, supported by Mayor Wagner, who ended the De Sapio era, thwarting his return to power in the district primary elections in 1963 and 1965. Heading a growing reform movement, Mr. Koch won a City Council seat in 1966 and befriended liberal causes, like antipoverty programs and rent controls.
By 1968, he was ready to move up. An opponent of the Vietnam War and a supporter of Senator Eugene J. McCarthy’s presidential candidacy, Mr. Koch, with Democratic and Liberal backing, upset Whitney North Seymour Jr. in what was called a classic American race — a son of immigrants versus the scion of a family rooted in national history — and became representative for the 17th Congressional District, the first Democrat to occupy the seat since 1934.
The seat, representing the affluent Upper East Side, parts of Midtown and Greenwich Village, was held by John V. Lindsay until he became mayor in 1966. Mr. Koch later represented the 18th District after a redistricting.
Mr. Koch, in Congress from 1969 to 1977, became known as a hard-working, independent liberal able to work with conservatives. He co-sponsored a law that gave citizens access to their government files and introduced legislation for a national commission on drug abuse. He supported public transportation and housing, Social Security and tax reform, home health care for the elderly, aid to Israel, amnesty for draft resisters, solar energy research, federal financing of abortions and consumer protection measures.
He was re-elected to the House four times by majorities of 62 percent to 77 percent. While in Congress, he stayed in Washington two weekends. He said he got “the bends” when outside New York too long. Every Thursday night, he went home for a weekend of campaigning and meeting constituents.
Still, he was almost unknown outside his district when he ran for mayor in 1977, facing six people in the Democratic primary, including the incumbent, Abraham D. Beame; Mario Cuomo, then New York’s secretary of state; Representatives Herman Badillo and Bella S. Abzug; the Manhattan borough president, Percy E. Sutton; and Joel W. Hartnett, a businessman and civic watchdog.
But there was wide dissatisfaction with Mayor Beame’s handling of the fiscal crisis in 1975; Time magazine put him on the cover as a beggar with a tin cup. Many New Yorkers were also worried about rising crime and spending on social programs.
Mr. Koch benefited from support by The New York Post, but he made the crucial moves. In one master stroke, he hired the consultant David Garth to run his campaign. Sensing the city’s rightward drift, Mr. Garth devised a more conservative image for Mr. Koch, a formidable task because the candidate had portrayed himself as a liberal, and he had no wife and children with whom to pose for the decorous voter.
To the rumors about his sexuality, his standard answer was that it was no one’s business but his own. Placards sprouted in the 1977 mayoral campaign saying, “Vote for Cuomo, Not the Homo.” Mr. Koch did not respond at the time, but 12 years later, in his book “His Eminence and Hizzoner,” he recalled, “When I first saw those posters, I cringed, and I wondered how I would be able to bear it.”
Although Mr. Cuomo always disclaimed responsibility for the posters, Mr. Koch never forgave him, as he made clear with a pointedly disparaging reference to Mr. Cuomo in a recorded interview with The Times that was not to be made public until Mr. Koch’s death.
Asked on a WMCA radio show in 1989 about his sexuality, Mr. Koch said that he was heterosexual. “I happen to believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality,” he said. “It’s whatever God made you. It happens that I’m heterosexual, but I don’t care about that. I do care about protecting the rights of 10 percent of our population who are homosexual and who don’t have the ability to protect their rights.”
Mr. Koch appeared often in the 1977 race with his close friend and adviser Bess Myerson, a former Miss America and a popular former city commissioner of consumer affairs.
In the campaign, Mr. Koch attacked Mayor Beame’s “clubhouse politics” and proclaimed himself a “liberal with sanity” — a competent manager who would see the city right.
He made frequent campaign trips to the boroughs outside Manhattan, where he denounced welfare abuse, unconscionable demands by municipal unions and wasteful spending by city agencies. He vowed to crack down on crime, advocated the death penalty in some cases and promised to abolish the Board of Education as “a lard barrel of waste.”
It worked. Mr. Koch received 20 percent of the primary vote to Mr. Cuomo’s 19 percent. Mr. Koch then won a runoff against Mr. Cuomo and went on to take the general election against State Senator Roy M. Goodman, a Republican; Barry Farber, a Conservative; and Mr. Cuomo, who had the Liberal Party line and the dubious distinction of losing three times to Mr. Koch that autumn.
Tackling Financial Ills
Resigning his House seat, Mr. Koch took the reins of a city government that faced a $400 million deficit, crumbling streets and bridges, heavy demands from labor leaders and a bond market that put city securities somewhere between unreliable and unsalable. Many businesses and middle-class residents were leaving, with concomitant losses in tax revenues and jobs.
The mayor rolled up his sleeves. After reaching a settlement with the unions, he scaled down the budget, ordered the attrition of 10 percent of the city’s 200,000-member work force and, with state officials, revised a fiscal recovery plan that sought the aid of banks and the state and federal governments. Congress approved loan guarantees of $2 billion, enabling the city to get back into the bond markets, and the road to recovery was paved.
Mr. Koch cut city services and patronage-laden antipoverty programs. There were outcries from some black and Hispanic leaders that he was favoring the middle class, but he balanced the budget in his first term. He also issued an order prohibiting discrimination in city jobs on the basis of sexual orientation, and proposed laws to limit smoking in public places and to provide public financing of political campaigns.
But he had little success in taking back some of the power that had been diffused in previous administrations. He failed to gain control of the quasi-independent Health and Hospitals Corporation and the Board of Education. But he got his man, Frank J. Macchiarola, hired as schools chancellor, and his former deputy mayor — Robert F. Wagner Jr., son of former Mayor Wagner — named president of the school board.
After winning his second term, Mr. Koch ran for the Democratic nomination for governor. It was a mistake, compounded by campaign blunders, he conceded later. In an interview with Playboy magazine, he called suburbia “sterile” and rural America “a joke.” The comments provoked an uproar from insulted suburbanites and upstate residents whose votes he needed.
Mr. Cuomo, the lieutenant governor, won the primary and went on to become governor. “In the end,” Andy Logan wrote in The New Yorker, “the joke was on Koch.”
He had always been frank, leaving himself open to charges of callousness. At various times he skewered and provoked the wrath of Jews and gentiles, business and union leaders, blacks and whites, feminists and male chauvinists. He vilified his Tammany foes as “crooks” and “moral lepers,” good-government panels as “elitists,” black and Hispanic leaders as “poverty pimps,” neighborhood protesters as “crazies” and Ms. Abzug as “wacko.”
He was never a man of deep intellect or great vision, students of government and even his associates conceded. But, they said, he was more complex than his blurted assessments and gratuitous insults implied. Critics said he could be petty, self-righteous and a bully when his ideas or policies were attacked.
But associates and admirers, pressed to explain how the mayor could be so popular while reducing city services and apparently alienating so many groups, insisted that Mr. Koch had extraordinary political instincts and theatrical flair, and that his candor only reflected what many New Yorkers had long thought themselves.
It was one thing for a politician to offer excuses for litter, crime and poor transit service, as so many did. But it was another to say, as Mr. Koch did, “It stinks.” Over time, many New Yorkers, especially the middle class, came to accept, and relish, his puckish candor.
The honeymoon lasted two terms. After the corruption scandals broke, however, the politics of candor paled, and critics said the mayor began to lose his touch, flip-flopping on issues as political winds shifted. He first sought more accountability from his commissioners, then softened; he first opposed, then supported immunity for those who confessed to bribing public officials.
Mr. Koch’s third-term agenda was ambitious: plans to improve education and to cut the welfare rolls, and a 10-year, $5.1 billion capital proposal to attack homelessness and the housing shortage by building or rehabilitating hundreds of thousands of units.
The housing plan, based on dozens of city financing and ownership programs, would become a notable and long-lasting success. It began with a stock of 10,000 properties abandoned by owners or seized by the city for tax delinquency.
By the end of the Koch administration, 3,000 apartments had been created in formerly vacant buildings, 13,000 more were under construction, and design work had begun on 20,000 more. In the next 15 years, over four mayoral administrations, 200,000 more units were built or restored, the number of vacant lots dropped sharply, and the original stock of 10,000 abandoned buildings was reduced to under 800.
But in Mr. Koch’s final years in office, his programs were all but overshadowed by scandals. As the mayor waffled, prosecutors charged that thousands of parking meter attendants and sewer, electrical and housing inspectors had taken graft. An avalanche of indictments and convictions ensued.
And the administration’s troubles multiplied: 50,000 homeless people crowded into shelters and roamed the streets and subways, and there was a surge of crack-related crimes and growing outrage in minority communities over claims of police brutality.
Then, in 1987, the stock market collapsed, and even the prosperity that had sustained the treasury and the mayor’s popularity began to flag. Mr. Koch had a mild stroke that August, and associates said he seemed for a time to lose heart.
By the end of his third term, Mr. Koch was tired. His original faith in government’s capacity to solve the problems of families and communities had been eroded; the old liberal had embraced the new creed of Reaganesque reliance on self-help, and it seemed that he had lost some of his old self-confidence.
“It’s a big city; you don’t know how to get your arms around it, and government becomes the enemy,” he told Sam Roberts of The Times a few months before he left office. “Twelve years ago, if someone attacked me, I wouldn’t let them get away with it. I’d take them on. I now perceive my job to include allowing people to vent their rage.”
After leaving office, Mr. Koch gave up his rent-controlled flat for a two-bedroom apartment on lower Fifth Avenue, but he gave no thought to retiring. He instead became a one-man media show, with forums on television and radio and in newspapers, magazines and books, besides being a lawyer, endorsing commercial products, lecturing and teaching. He earned over $1.5 million a year.
Mr. Koch had occasional medical problems. He suffered what doctors called a moderate heart attack in 1999, and in 2009 he underwent quadruple bypass surgery and replacement of his aortic valve. He had worn a pacemaker since collapsing with an irregular heartbeat in 1991. There were subsequent hospitalizations for various ailments.
On March 22, 1999, he was briefly hospitalized with low blood pressure hours before he was to be arrested with scores of others in protests organized by a onetime foe, the Rev. Al Sharpton, over the police shooting of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed immigrant from Guinea. Getting himself arrested for a cause raised only a few eyebrows; Mr. Koch, almost a decade out of office, still wanted to march at the head of the parade.
In 2008, approaching 84, he was still pitching — endorsing Barack Obama for president, shaking the hand of the visiting Pope Benedict XVI, even generating publicity with his own burial plans. “Koch, Resolved to Spend Eternity in Manhattan, Buys a Cemetery Plot,” a Times headline said.
In 2010, Mr. Koch took on his most ambitious fight in years, leading a coalition, New York Uprising, against what he called “a dysfunctional Legislature” in Albany. He traveled the state on a mission to shame lawmakers who failed to sign a pledge to promote reforms.
“Throw the bums out!” he shouted in Buffalo. “You’re either on the side of angels or you’re a bum. And if the angels betray their pledges, I’m going to run around the state screaming, ‘Liar, liar, pants on fire!’ ”
At various times he wrote columns for The Post, The Daily News, the online magazine Jewish World Review and the right-wing Web site NewsMax.com. He also wrote movie and restaurant reviews for local weeklies.
He made regular appearances on WCBS-TV, had talk shows on Fox television and on WNEW and WABC radio, teamed with former Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato for a Bloomberg Radio program and was a frequent commentator on the local news television station NY1.
His remarks often sounded like pronouncements by an officeholder, proposing policy changes and oozing invective for political opponents and journalistic rivals. Mr. Koch denied he was wreaking vengeance on old foes, but, as he told New York magazine, “It’s a lot more fun being a critic than being the one criticized.”
Political Influence Lasted
Out of office, Mr. Koch remained influential in New York politics. He crossed party lines to support Mr. Giuliani in the 1993 mayoral election, an endorsement crucial to Mr. Dinkins’s defeat. But Mr. Koch later turned against Mr. Giuliani, flaying him as “a good mayor but a terrible person” and refusing to endorse him for a second term.
Mr. Koch endorsed Mr. Bloomberg’s successful races for mayor as a Republican in 2001 and 2005, calling him about “as Republican as I am.” (Mr. Bloomberg later refashioned himself as an independent.) And when Mr. Bloomberg engineered a legislative finesse of term-limits laws to run for a third term in 2009, Mr. Koch backed him and called for an end to term limits.
In presidential races, Mr. Koch went back and forth. He supported the losing Democratic ticket of Al Gore and Joseph I. Lieberman in 2000, but joined the Bush-Cheney re-election bandwagon in 2004 and promoted the Republican National Convention in New York, urging New Yorkers to “make nice” to conventioneers. By 2008, he was back with the Democrats, supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the nomination and, when she lost, switching to Mr. Obama.
Mr. Koch’s only official work in recent years was a 2007 appointment to a panel examining the state comptroller’s office after a scandal that forced out Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi.
Mr. Koch appeared, mostly as himself, in a score of movies, including “The Muppets Take Manhattan” and “The First Wives Club,” and in cameo roles on television shows, including “Sex and the City.”
And he was the star, of course, of “Koch,” the documentary film by Neil Barsky that had its premiere on Tuesday at the Museum of Modern Art. Mr. Koch, hospitalized, was forced to miss the event.
For years Mr. Koch worked out with a personal trainer almost every morning at a gym. He became a partner with Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn & Berman, which in a 2002 merger became Bryan Cave, an international law firm and one of the largest real estate practices in New York. He provided advice and brought in many clients.
He became an adjunct professor at New York University, Brandeis University and Baruch College of the City University of New York, and gave lectures across the country and abroad, with minimum fees of $20,000 for off-the-cuff talks on race relations, drugs, anti-Semitism or “Koch on the City,” “Koch on the State” or “Koch on Everything.”
From 1997 to 1999, he was the judge on the nationally syndicated show “The People’s Court,” hearing small claims and ribald testimony like that of a man who claimed he suffered whiplash from a topless dancer’s breasts. Mr. Koch was done in by the competing “Judge Judy” — Judith A. Sheindlin, a retired New York City Family Court judge — and was replaced by her husband, Gerald Sheindlin, a retired State Supreme Court justice. Mr. Koch had appointed both to the bench.
He wrote more books — 17 in all — murder mysteries, commentaries on politics, and other subjects. Most were a blend of his insights, experiences and observations with co-authors providing the workaday prose. In office, he produced “Mayor” (1984), “Politics” (1985) and “His Eminence and Hizzoner” (1989). Later came “All the Best: Letters From a Feisty Mayor” (1990), “Ed Koch on Everything” (1994), “I’m Not Done Yet” (2000) and “Buzz: How to Create It and Win With It” (2007).
Mr. Koch and his sister, Pat Koch Thaler, wrote “Eddie: Harold’s Little Brother,” a children’s book that appeared in 2004. His brother, Harold M. Koch, a carpet distributor, died in 1995. Besides his sister, a former dean at N.Y.U. whom he saw regularly in later years, Mr. Koch is survived by New York itself, as an old friend put it a few years ago.
“The city was and is his family,” said Maureen Connelly, a former press secretary and veteran political adviser. “We used to be scared about what would happen to Ed if he lost. We said it would be best if he just died in the saddle. But he never had any intention of getting off the horse.” ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| Former New York Mayor Ed Koch (kahch), the combative politician who rescued the city from near-financial ruin during three City Hall terms, has DIES at age 88.
Spokesman George Arzt says Koch died Friday morning of congestive heart failure.
In City Hall, Koch embodied New York for the rest of the world. He won a national reputation with his feisty style and his trademark question, "How'm I doing?"
During his years as mayor, from 1978 to 1989, his tight fiscal policies pulled the city out of severe financial difficulties. But homelessness and racial tensions soared and critics charged that City Hall's responses were ineffective.
His mark on the city was set in steel when the Queensboro Bridge, connecting Manhattan to Queens, was renamed in Koch's honor in 2011. | Three-term New York City Mayor Ed Koch has died of congestive heart failure at age 88, a spokesman announced this morning. Koch, who was mayor from 1978 to 1989, led the city back from the brink of financial disaster and became a New York icon worldwide, the AP notes. Never one to shy from a fight, Koch often asked, "How'm I doing?" How New York is taking the news: The New York Times salutes his "tumultuous" time at the helm, calling him "the master showman of City Hall" who displayed "all the tenacity, zest, and combativeness that personified his city of golden dreams." Koch "could outtalk anybody in the authentic voice of New York: as opinionated as a Flatbush cabby, as loud as the scrums on 42nd Street, as pugnacious as a West Side reform Democrat mother," writes Robert McFadden. Koch was "unpredictable to the end," notes Tracy Connor at the New York Daily News. He was "a quote machine who courted controversy, a self-proclaimed 'liberal with sanity' who angered civil libertarians and civil rights activists." One choice example: "I'm not the type to get ulcers. I give them." He finally "attained the status of a cranky but beloved elder statesman whom no one could accuse of not loving the city he dominated for a dozen years," writes Jennifer Maloney at the Wall Street Journal. It was that love that "made him a great mayor," said former rival Mario Cuomo. |
(CNN) Donald Trump is striking back at Mitt Romney on Thursday, after the 2012 Republican presidential nominee said his party's current front-runner could have a "bombshell" in his tax returns.
"Mitt Romney, who was one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics, is now pushing me on tax returns. Dope!" the billionaire businessman said in a series of Tweets attacking Romney.
Mitt Romney, who was one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics, is now pushing me on tax returns. Dope!
Trump wrote that tax returns have zero to do with a person's net worth, and all swung at the establishment wing of the Republican party, many of whom have coalesced behind Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as an answer to Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
"Why doesn't @MittRomney just endorse @marcorubio already. Should have done it before NH or Nevada where he had a little sway. Too late now!"
Trump said, "I'm going to do what @MittRomney was totally unable to do- WIN!"
Romney used the same medium to respond, tweeting back at the billionaire businessman Thursday.
"Methinks the Donald doth protest too much. Show voters your back taxes, @realDonaldTrump. #WhatIsHeHiding," Romney tweeted
Methinks the Donald doth protest too much. Show voters your back taxes, @realDonaldTrump. #WhatIsHeHiding — Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) February 25, 2016
The real estate mogul first rejected Romney's accusation out of hand in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Wednesday, saying "there is no bombshell at all other than I pay a lot of tax and the government wastes the money."
Romney's biting attack hinted at clear signs of alarm in the Republican establishment at the billionaire's tightening grip on the party's presidential race.
"We have good reason to believe that there's a bombshell in Donald Trump's taxes," Romney told Fox News, and also called on the top anti-Trump contenders Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to disclose their tax information as well.
"Either he's not anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is, or he hasn't been paying taxes we would expect him to pay or perhaps he hasn't been giving money to vets or to the disabled like he's been telling us he's been doing," Romney added.
JUST WATCHED Romney predicts 'bombshell' in Trump's taxes Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Romney predicts 'bombshell' in Trump's taxes 00:48
Other Republicans -- including South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham -- came to Trump's defense Thursday.
"We as Republicans should not accept that this man has a tainted financial past," Graham told CNN's "This Hour," adding later, "It's clear to me he doesn't want to show us his financial situation."
The 2012 Republican nominee's broadside followed Trump's thumping victories in three of the first four GOP nominating contests, including in Nevada on Tuesday night, which have established the billionaire businessman as the party's undisputed front-runner.
It was also an attack steeped in irony, since Romney was on the receiving end of similar claims by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , when Democrats eviscerated him over his fortune and business record during the 2012 campaign. Reid zeroed in on his taxes, saying he hadn't paid any in a decade without offering any evidence to support the claim.
Trump left the door open to not releasing his tax returns Wednesday.
The GOP front-runner told CNN that he will "make a determination over the next couple of months" as to whether he will release his tax returns.
Romney, who decided against a third presidential run last year after initially considering jumping in to the race, uncorked his attack on Trump, ahead of next week's Super Tuesday contests that could further cement the billionaire's strong front-runner status in the GOP presidential race.
Romney's move appeared to not just be a sign of concern that Trump -- after defying pundits and political logic since he launched his "outsider" campaign last summer -- could actually go on to claim the Republican nomination.
JUST WATCHED Mitt Romney comments on Donald Trump Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mitt Romney comments on Donald Trump 01:23
It was also a sign of skittishness about the damage the Democrats will try to inflict on Trump, who has a long and sometimes controversial business record, in a general election, if he does indeed emerge as the GOP nominee.
"They were all over me for my taxes," Romney told Fox.
While Cruz and Rubio have yet to release their tax returns this campaign season, years of tax returns from both candidates are already publicly available from the time when they ran for Senate.
Reid ignited a firestorm in the 2012 presidential race by claiming on the Senate floor, without presenting any evidence, that "the word's out that he hasn't paid any taxes in 10 years." His attack was part of a fierce effort by the Obama re-election campaign to portray Romney as an out of touch and heartless businessman unable to understand the economic problems afflicting the middle class. Reid later told CNN that he did not regret his move, noting archly that Romney did not win the election.
The irony of the moment was not lost on Reid.
"All I know, I can't imagine Romney having the gall coming after anybody's returns," the Senate minority leader told CNN on Thursday. "Let's look at his."
It also struck one key member of Obama's re-election campaign.
"Did Mitt Romney just do to Donald Trump on tax returns what he was so mad at Harry Reid for doing to him?" said former Obama political adviser and current CNN commentator Dan Pfeiffer on Twitter.
Under intense pressure, Romney did finally release his tax returns during the campaign, but when it emerged that he had paid around 14% taxes on his 2010 return, there was political uproar that played into the hands of the Obama campaign.
The former Massachusetts governor was taking advantage of rules in the tax code under which income derived from dividends and capital gains is taxed at lower rates than traditional wages.
Trump last summer released his personal financial disclosure shortly after announcing his presidential run and has consistently touted the fact that he released his financial numbers ahead of schedule.
Trump said he was worth $8 billion, a figure he and his accountants later revised to $10 billion when he officially released his personal financial disclosure. Forbes has estimated Trump's net worth at $4.5 billion, a figure Trump has disputed.
On Wednesday, Trump also stressed that his tax returns "are extremely complex," which Romney has rejected given that Trump would only need to publish several years of past tax returns which he has already filed.
Trump stressed as he has in the past that he pays "as little as possible because it's an expense and it's not one I'm happy paying because frankly the United States government wastes a lot of money." ||||| (CNN) Donald Trump is striking back at Mitt Romney on Thursday, after the 2012 Republican presidential nominee said his party's current front-runner could have a "bombshell" in his tax returns.
"Mitt Romney, who was one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics, is now pushing me on tax returns. Dope!" the billionaire businessman said in a series of Tweets attacking Romney.
Mitt Romney, who was one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics, is now pushing me on tax returns. Dope!
Trump wrote that tax returns have zero to do with a person's net worth, and all swung at the establishment wing of the Republican party, many of whom have coalesced behind Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as an answer to Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
"Why doesn't @MittRomney just endorse @marcorubio already. Should have done it before NH or Nevada where he had a little sway. Too late now!"
Trump said, "I'm going to do what @MittRomney was totally unable to do- WIN!"
Romney used the same medium to respond, tweeting back at the billionaire businessman Thursday.
"Methinks the Donald doth protest too much. Show voters your back taxes, @realDonaldTrump. #WhatIsHeHiding," Romney tweeted
Methinks the Donald doth protest too much. Show voters your back taxes, @realDonaldTrump. #WhatIsHeHiding — Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) February 25, 2016
The real estate mogul first rejected Romney's accusation out of hand in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Wednesday, saying "there is no bombshell at all other than I pay a lot of tax and the government wastes the money."
Romney's biting attack hinted at clear signs of alarm in the Republican establishment at the billionaire's tightening grip on the party's presidential race.
"We have good reason to believe that there's a bombshell in Donald Trump's taxes," Romney told Fox News, and also called on the top anti-Trump contenders Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to disclose their tax information as well.
"Either he's not anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is, or he hasn't been paying taxes we would expect him to pay or perhaps he hasn't been giving money to vets or to the disabled like he's been telling us he's been doing," Romney added.
JUST WATCHED Romney predicts 'bombshell' in Trump's taxes Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Romney predicts 'bombshell' in Trump's taxes 00:48
Other Republicans -- including South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham -- came to Trump's defense Thursday.
"We as Republicans should not accept that this man has a tainted financial past," Graham told CNN's "This Hour," adding later, "It's clear to me he doesn't want to show us his financial situation."
The 2012 Republican nominee's broadside followed Trump's thumping victories in three of the first four GOP nominating contests, including in Nevada on Tuesday night, which have established the billionaire businessman as the party's undisputed front-runner.
It was also an attack steeped in irony, since Romney was on the receiving end of similar claims by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , when Democrats eviscerated him over his fortune and business record during the 2012 campaign. Reid zeroed in on his taxes, saying he hadn't paid any in a decade without offering any evidence to support the claim.
Trump left the door open to not releasing his tax returns Wednesday.
The GOP front-runner told CNN that he will "make a determination over the next couple of months" as to whether he will release his tax returns.
Romney, who decided against a third presidential run last year after initially considering jumping in to the race, uncorked his attack on Trump, ahead of next week's Super Tuesday contests that could further cement the billionaire's strong front-runner status in the GOP presidential race.
Romney's move appeared to not just be a sign of concern that Trump -- after defying pundits and political logic since he launched his "outsider" campaign last summer -- could actually go on to claim the Republican nomination.
JUST WATCHED Mitt Romney comments on Donald Trump Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mitt Romney comments on Donald Trump 01:23
It was also a sign of skittishness about the damage the Democrats will try to inflict on Trump, who has a long and sometimes controversial business record, in a general election, if he does indeed emerge as the GOP nominee.
"They were all over me for my taxes," Romney told Fox.
While Cruz and Rubio have yet to release their tax returns this campaign season, years of tax returns from both candidates are already publicly available from the time when they ran for Senate.
Reid ignited a firestorm in the 2012 presidential race by claiming on the Senate floor, without presenting any evidence, that "the word's out that he hasn't paid any taxes in 10 years." His attack was part of a fierce effort by the Obama re-election campaign to portray Romney as an out of touch and heartless businessman unable to understand the economic problems afflicting the middle class. Reid later told CNN that he did not regret his move, noting archly that Romney did not win the election.
The irony of the moment was not lost on Reid.
"All I know, I can't imagine Romney having the gall coming after anybody's returns," the Senate minority leader told CNN on Thursday. "Let's look at his."
It also struck one key member of Obama's re-election campaign.
"Did Mitt Romney just do to Donald Trump on tax returns what he was so mad at Harry Reid for doing to him?" said former Obama political adviser and current CNN commentator Dan Pfeiffer on Twitter.
Under intense pressure, Romney did finally release his tax returns during the campaign, but when it emerged that he had paid around 14% taxes on his 2010 return, there was political uproar that played into the hands of the Obama campaign.
The former Massachusetts governor was taking advantage of rules in the tax code under which income derived from dividends and capital gains is taxed at lower rates than traditional wages.
Trump last summer released his personal financial disclosure shortly after announcing his presidential run and has consistently touted the fact that he released his financial numbers ahead of schedule.
Trump said he was worth $8 billion, a figure he and his accountants later revised to $10 billion when he officially released his personal financial disclosure. Forbes has estimated Trump's net worth at $4.5 billion, a figure Trump has disputed.
On Wednesday, Trump also stressed that his tax returns "are extremely complex," which Romney has rejected given that Trump would only need to publish several years of past tax returns which he has already filed.
Trump stressed as he has in the past that he pays "as little as possible because it's an expense and it's not one I'm happy paying because frankly the United States government wastes a lot of money." ||||| 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 ||||| Photo
Mitt Romney emerged from political hibernation on Wednesday and issued a challenge to Donald J. Trump: Show us your taxes.
Mr. Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, raised serious questions about the party’s apparent front-runner for the nomination this year, suggesting that there was most likely something unseemly in Mr. Trump’s tax returns and that perhaps the Manhattan businessman was not as rich as he likes to let on.
“Frankly, I think we have good reason to believe that there’s a bombshell in Donald Trump’s taxes,” Mr. Romney said in an interview with Fox News.
Asked what he meant, Mr. Romney shared some theories: “Either he’s not anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is, or he hasn’t been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay, or perhaps he hasn’t been giving money to the vets or to the disabled like he’s been telling us he’s been doing.”
The remarks from Mr. Romney come as mainstream Republicans have grown increasingly nervous that Mr. Trump will be the party’s nominee. Mr. Romney expressed little hope that Senator Marco Rubio of Florida or Senator Ted Cruz of Texas could break through at this point.
“Donald Trump has the clearest path to become the Republican nominee,” Mr. Romney said in some of his most expansive public comments on the state of the campaign. “I think for the other people still in the race, their path is becoming a slimmer and slimmer opening, and they’re having a difficult time communicating to their supporters just how they could become the nominee.”
Mr. Romney said that he was not singling out Mr. Trump per se, and that he thought all of the candidates should release their tax information before Republican voters pick a nominee.
Firing back on Twitter, Mr. Trump said that he did not intend to take political advice from Mr. Romney.
Mitt Romney,who totally blew an election that should have been won and whose tax returns made him look like a fool, is now playing tough guy — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2016
Mr. Romney, who is a multimillionaire, released his tax returns in early 2012 after coming under pressure from Democrats. By calling on Mr. Trump to do the same, Mr. Romney, a two-time presidential candidate, is, in a way, taking a page out of the playbook of Senator Harry Reid, who had accused Mr. Romney of not paying taxes for years.
Mr. Trump has said publicly that he will release his tax information in the coming months and that the delay has been due to the complexity of his finances. He claims to be worth $10 billion and has said that he pays as little taxes as possible because he loathes how the government spends his money.
Having heard such excuses before, Mr. Romney said that even returns from previous years would be helpful.
“The reason I think there is a bombshell in there is because every time he is asked about his taxes, he dodges and delays and says, ‘Well, we’re working on it,'” Mr. Romney said. “Hey, we’re not talking about the taxes that are coming due this year. We are talking about taxes already filed, back taxes.”
When the information is eventually released, Mr. Romney will be eager to see what Mr. Trump is hiding.
“Frankly, the voters have a right to see those tax returns before they decide who our nominee ought to be,” he said.
Mr. Romney has come under some pressure from allies of Mr. Rubio to endorse him, in the hopes of demonstrating a show of force that could compel Gov. John Kasich of Ohio to leave the race. But Mr. Romney has told allies that he isn’t ready yet to make an endorsement.
However, he has been incensed by Mr. Trump’s rise, according to people familiar with his thinking, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing private conversations.
The question of unreleased tax returns dogged Mr. Romney throughout the 2012 race. When he finally released them that September, he was hammered for having paid an effective tax rate of less than 15 percent.
Some Republican pundits have publicly told Mr. Trump that he was taking a risk waiting to release his returns. | In a bit of an ironic twist, former presidential candidate Mitt Romney is publicly calling on Donald Trump to release his tax information and speculating on what the Republican frontrunner might be hiding, CNN reports. "We have good reason to believe that there's a bombshell in Donald Trump's taxes," Romney said Wednesday. "Either he's not anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is, or he hasn't been paying taxes we would expect him to pay." The New York Times describes the move by Romney as "taking a page out of the playbook" of Democratic Sen. Harry Reid. Reid and others had to pressure Romney to release his financial information in 2012 only for it to be revealed he was paying less than 15% in taxes. Trump has already admitted he pays as little in taxes as possible and has also disputed outside estimates of his net worth. He responded to Romney's claims in typical Trump fashion. "Mitt Romney, who totally blew an election that should have been won and whose tax returns made him look like a fool, is now playing tough guy," Trump tweeted. In a Wednesday night interview with Anderson Cooper, Trump said he'll decide "over the next couple of months" whether he'll release the documents. As for the "bombshell," there is none, "other than I pay a lot of tax and the government wastes the money." |
Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker has always been characterized as a conservative with libertarian leanings. But after he struck down California's voter-approved gay marriage ban this week, he was accused by some of being something else entirely: a gay activist.
Rumors have circulated for months that Walker is gay, fueled by the blogosphere and a San Francisco Chronicle column that stated his sexual orientation was an "open secret" in legal and gay activism circles.
Walker himself hasn't addressed the speculation, and he did not respond to a request for comment by The Associated Press on Thursday. Lawyers in the case, including those defending the ban, say the judge's sexuality _ gay or straight _ was not an issue at trial, and they have no definitive plans for it to be a factor on appeal.
But that hasn't stopped a public debate that exploded in the wake of the 66-year-old jurist's Wednesday decision. Most of the chatter has come from opponents of same-sex marriage.
"Here we have an openly gay federal judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who, I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution," said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of The National Organization for Marriage, a group that helped fund the ban, known as Proposition 8.
In response, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a political action committee for gay candidates, launched an online petition accusing Gallagher's group of "gay-baiting."
But the debate raises the question: Why is sexuality different from other personal characteristics judges posses? Can a female judge rule on abortion issues? A black judge on civil rights?
"The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal," Walker wrote in his exacting, 136-page opinion.
Gerard Bradley, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, published a Fox News column in the hours before Walker filed his opinion faulting the media for not forcing Walker to address his sexual orientation.
And Byran Fischer, issues director for the American Family Association, urged the group's members to contact their congressional representatives about launching impeachment proceedings because Walker had not recused himself from a case in which "his own personal sexual proclivities utterly compromised his ability to make an impartial ruling."
William G. Ross, an expert on judicial ethics and law professor at Samford University in Alabama, said that a judge's sexual orientation has no more relevance to his or her ability to rule fairly on a case involving gay marriage than it would for a deeply religious judge or a judge who had been divorced multiple times.
"Under the logic of the people challenging the judge's fitness to rule on a case involving gay rights because he or she was gay, one would have to find a eunuch to serve on the case, because one could just as easily argue that a heterosexual judge couldn't rule on it either," Ross said.
Months before Walker struck down Proposition 8 as an unconstitutional violation of gay Americans' civil rights, members of the team defending the ban in court had complained about what they perceived as judicial bias.
Over their vigorous objections, Walker pushed to have the proceedings televised live, a plan the U.S. Supreme Court quashed at the last minute. Then, he refused to excuse as a witness a Proposition 8 supporter who had compared gays to child molesters during the 2008 campaign. Lawyers for the two same-sex couples who sued to invalidate the ban had called him as a witness to try to prove the measure was fueled by anti-gay prejudice.
Nevertheless, the defense does not plan to raise the specter of the judge's sexual orientation as they appeal his ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said Jim Campbell, a lawyer with the defense team. At this point all they have been presented with is rumors and speculation in the media, an unsound basis for any prospective legal position, he said.
"The bottom line is this case, from our perspective, is and always will be about the law and not about the judge who decides it," Campbell said. "It's just something that collectively as a legal team we have decided and going up, that's what this case is. The appellate courts are going to focus on the law."
Walker has ruled in at least two other cases involving gay rights issues during his two decades as a judge. In 1999, he rejected arguments from the parents of a San Leandro boy who claimed their religious rights were violated by pro-gay comments their son's teacher had made in the classroom.
In the other case, he dismissed a free speech claim by two Oakland city employees whose managers had confiscated a bulletin board flier for a religious group that promoted "natural family, marriage and family values." The city had "significant interests in restricting discriminatory speech about homosexuals," Walker wrote in his 2005 ruling.
Until this week, though, Walker had come under more criticism for representing the U.S. Olympic Committee in a lawsuit against a gay ex-Olympian who had created the so-called Gay Olympics. Walker won, forcing the Gay Olympics to become the Gay Games. He also aggressively pursued legal fees by attaching a $97,000 lien to the home of the organization's founder while he was dying of AIDS.
Gay activists cried foul, and his appointment to a federal judgeship was delayed for two years in the waning days of Ronald Reagan's presidency.
Civil rights groups also opposed Walker's nomination because of his 15-year membership in the Olympic Club, an all-male athletic club that had only recently admitted its first black members. California's senior senator at the time, Democrat Alan Cranston, used the club issue to question Walker's fitness for the bench.
Observers usually describe him as a maverick who delights in keeping people guessing. They still are.
On the day of closing arguments in the gay marriage ban case, Walker said it was appropriate that the case was wrapping up in June.
"June, after all, is the month for ... " He let his deep voice trail off, and smiled at the predominantly gay courtroom. Many froze, wondering if he would refer to the month in which San Francisco celebrates gay pride like Mardi Gras. Would that be a nod to rumors he was gay?
Walker waited a beat longer, savoring the moment. The he settled the suspense.
"... weddings," he said.
___
Associated Press Writer Juliana Barbassa contributed to this story. ||||| On Friday’s edition of "Washington Watch with Tony Perkins" we’ll hear an interview between Tony and HHS Secretary Alex Azar from FRC’s 14th annual ProLifeCon this morning where they discussed the sanctity of life and what the Trump administration is doing to promote a culture that values life at every stage. Sarah Perry, Director of Partnerships at Family Research Council Action, will pick up the middle of the program to guest host for Tony. She’ll be joined by Rep. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) who will share his history as a physician and how caring for mothers and their babies from the first doctors visit to the delivery has impacted his advocacy for the pro-life movement. Co-Founder of the Radiance Foundation, Ryan Bomberger, joins Sarah to highlight the concerns of minority mothers and crisis pregnancies, and how people can get involved to help. Then, we’ll take a look back at another interview from this morning’s ProLifeCon – “Unplanned” movie producers Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman, and the lead actress Ashley Bratcher, give the details behind the scenes of the movie project.
Related Radio Resources:
Call in at 866-372-7234 ||||| Same-Sex Marriage Decision: "Far From Over"
Even before this week's ruling in the case involving Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage in California, appeals of the judge's decision were expected.In response to a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who said the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights, Judge Vaughan Walker rejected every argument posed by sponsors of the ban. In his 136-page opinion, Walker wrote, "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.""I think the critical issue here is that what you have is a district court finding after a full trial - everybody had an opportunity to be heard - an opinion that demonstrates that there is simply no basis whatsoever to continue discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens who want to marry," said David Boies, one of the lead attorneys in the lawsuit against Proposition 8.Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council and a supporter of the ban on same-sex marriage, called the decision an example of judicial activism."This issue is not going to go away," Perkins said on"I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows - and a district level judge and an openly-homosexual judge at that - who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California, but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments. This is far from over."[Perkins referred to a February 2010 San Francisco Chronicle column which claims Walker's homosexuality was an "open secret." Walker himself has not answered questions about his sexual orientation . Nevertheless, the defense team does not plan to raise the specter of the judge's sexual orientation as they appeal his ruling to the Ninth Circuit, lawyer Jim Campbell told the Associated Press this week. "The bottom line is this case, from our perspective, is and always will be about the law and not about the judge who decides it."]When asked by Dickerson what basis the judge's sexual orientation might have on his ruling, Perkins admitted he did not know whether Walker is gay or straight, but added, "I think, you know, had this guy been, say, an evangelical preacher in his past, there would have been cries for him to step down from this case. I do think it has a bearing on the case."Perkins said the judge ignored "a lot of the social science" about the affects of same-sex couples on families, and cited a 2005 ruling by a federal district level judge that Nebaska's ban against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, a decision that was overturned in the 8th Circuit."Certainly not only based upon the social empirical data that's out there, but on the legal basis, this is a flawed decision," Perkins said. "And as I said, it's far from over."Boies disputed Perkins on the evidence: "It's easy to sit around and debate and throw around opinions that appeal to people's fear and prejudice, [and] cite studies that either don't exist or don't say what you say they do."In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions, you've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination," Boies said. "And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to voteto make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can't be cross-examined."But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that."That's what we proved: We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost," Boies said.Perkins retorted that "there is not conclusive evidence to suggest that children who grow up with two moms or two dads fare as well as children who grow up with a mom and a dad," but acknowledged that the issue of how children are impacted by same-sex relationships is "relatively new."But he did suggest that over the last 40 years marriage has been "devalued," and said there is abundant evidence to suggest public policy - such as no-fault divorce - "has truly impacted children and impacted the institution of marriage."And the judge in his ruling actually just ignored all of that and said there is no evidence that any of the policy that's been adopted on no-fault divorce and other liberal-leaning policies has impacted marriage," Perkins said. "I think anybody with a half a brain can see that the policies that have been adopted in the last 40 years have impacted marriage, and as a result have impacted the well-being of children."Boies responded, saying Judge Walker did deal with it, "and he pointed out, which is obvious, that no-fault divorce doesn't have anything to do with the issue that's here."The empirical studies that do exist and that are based on what's happened in Canada and Sweden and Spain and other countries and other states where you are able to have marriage equality, demonstrate that there is no harm. There are studies going back for 20 years that demonstrate this. The problem here is that, unlike a court, people don't stick to the facts."Thought the case is headed for an appeals court, many expect it will land before the U.S. Supreme Court. Boies predicted that the High Court will side with him."Remember, unlike abortion, the court is not creating a new legal right," he said. "This is a right that has been well recognized for 100 years in terms of the right of individuals to marry. And all that's at issue here is, can the State of California take away that right depending on the sex of your intended partner? And that issue depends exactly on what you said before: Is there a rational base for that distinction? Can you prove that it harms heterosexual marriage? Children? Can you prove it harms anybody? Why do you make these people suffer if it doesn't help anybody?"And what we proved at trial is that there simply isn't any basis, no evidence at all, to indicate that this has any harm to anybody. Indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary, that it makes those relationships more stable. Even the defendant's own witnesses admitted that there was no evidence of harm to heterosexual marriage or to children as a result of gay and lesbian marriage. Even the defendant's own experts admitted that there was great harm to homosexual couples and the children they're raising by depriving them of the stability and love of marriage."Perkins said, "We hope that sanity will reign when it does make its way to the United States Supreme Court."This is an activist decision by a district-level court who is interjecting his view over the view of not only millions of Americans who have voted on this issue, but literally the history of the human race," Perkins said.Also appearing at a roundtable discussion on the program,disputed Boies' assertion that the highest court in the land would back Walker's decision."They are asking the Supreme Court to set aside essentially the laws of 44 states, so that is an enormous stretch," Crawford said. "Now of course, the Supreme Court has taken up issues of gay rights in the past. Justice Kennedy, the key swing vote in 2003, said that states could not criminalize homosexual sex in the privacy of your bedroom. But that is an entirely different matter than saying there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."In this case, Judge Walker quoted Anthony Kennedy 15 times or so" in his decision," noted. "It was a letter to him, wasn't it? Is that going to work, writing directly to Kennedy, trying to use his own words to say you have to vote with me?"Clearly this decision was a decision with an eye on appeal," said Crawford. She pointed out the narrow divisions on the court: "You have four liberals and the four conservatives and the man in the middle Anthony Kennedy who's kind of this human jump ball. What they are asking Justice Kennedy to do in this case is not only, I mean, he's got to grab the ball, take it down the court, slam it in the basket and shatter the backboard. This is something that Anthony Kennedy doesn't do. He's a very cautious justice. He doesn't like to get ahead."The same-sex ruling that he wrote in 2003, that struck down laws that criminalized homosexual sex - no one was enforcing these laws," Crawford said. "This would change the law of the nation. They would be so far ahead of public opinion, and that is why this case was controversial from the beginning."Remember, the traditional gay rights groups did not want David Boies and his conservative counterpart Ted Olsen to file this case because they think the Supreme Court is not ready. They wanted to see more states pass laws allowing same-sex marriage and then take it to the court and not put that onus and that pressure on the Supreme Court."I would not be so confident if I were David Boies," she said. | "Homosexual" Judge Vaughan Walker should have recused himself from the court decision ejecting California's Proposition 8 banning gay marriage, charged the head of a conservative "family council." What "you have is one judge—and an openly homosexual judge at that—who says he knows better than 7 million voters in the state of California," said Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council. Judge Walker has not declared his sexual orientation. When pressed on CBS' Face the Nation yesterday, Perkins admitted he doesn't know if Walker is gay or straight. However, he added: "Had this guy been, say, an evangelical preacher in his past, there would have been cries for him to step down from this case. I do think it has a bearing on the case." Perkins charged Walker ignored "social science" proving the harm of gay marriage and legal logic. "This issue is not going to go away," he added. The legal team appealing the decision does not intend to raise the issue of Walker's rumored sexual orientation, lawyer James Campbell has told AP. "The bottom line is the law, and not about the judge who decides it," he said. |
The performer died of heart failure, according to his longtime manager.
George Michael has died of heart failure, according to the singer's longtime manager, Michael Lippman.
The English singer, songwriter and record producer who rose to fame with the group Wham! in the 1980s was found Christmas morning, says Lippman.
"It is with great sadness that we can confirm our beloved son, brother and friend George passed away peacefully at home over the Christmas period," his rep said in a statement to the BBC. "The family would ask that their privacy be respected at this difficult and emotional time. There will be no further comment at this stage."
"I'm devastated," Lippman said Sunday. The manager received a call on Christmas morning notifying him that Michael had been found "in bed, lying peacefully." The exact time of death is not clear at this time, but there was "no foul play whatsoever," said Lippman.
The death by heart failure was unexpected, he added. Funeral plans will be announced shortly.
The Thames Valley Police, calling the death "unexplained but not suspicious," sent THR the following statement: "Thames Valley Police were called to a property in Goring-on-Thames shortly before 2pm Christmas Day. Sadly, a 53-year-old man was confirmed deceased at the scene. At this stage the death is being treated as unexplained but not suspicious. A post mortem will be undertaken in due course. There will be no further updates from Thames Valley Police until the post mortem has taken place."
Michael gained success in the 1980s with Wham!, the duo created with his friend Andrew Ridgeley. Both as a solo artist and with Wham!, Michael collected 10 No. 1 singles on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, including “Faith,” “Father Figure,” “One More Try” and “Careless Whisper.” The latter cut was credited to Wham! featuring Michael, while Wham! notched two more No. 1 hits: “Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go” and “Everything She Wants.” Over on the Billboard 200 albums chart, Wham! claimed a No. 1 with its breakthrough album Make It Big (spending three weeks at No. 1 in 1985), while Michael led the list as a soloist with Faith, spending 12 weeks in the top spot in 1988. He has sold more than 115 million records globally, according to Sony Music.
Born Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou in London on June 25, 1963, Michael showed his musical aspirations early on while attending schools in the towns of Bushey and Kingsbury in the United Kingdom. It was at the former where he would meet future Wham! partner Ridgeley. The two would form a ska band called The Executive, which featured Ridgeley and his brother Paul, though it was short-lived. Michael also spent time busking on the London Underground, where he performed songs by Elton John, David Bowie and The Beatles.
Michael and Ridgeley formed Wham! in 1981 and released their debut album, Fantastic, in July 1983, which quickly shot up to the top of the British charts. The 1982 single “Young Guns” was a Top 5 hit that made its way across the pond to the United States, but the band’s debut only reached No. 83 on the Billboard 200 chart that year.
That all changed with follow-up album Make It Big, which was released Oct. 23, 1984. It reached No. 1 in the U.S., U.K., Japan and multiple territories with lead track “Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" sitting at the top spot on the U.S. Hot 100 chart for three weeks. That album also included the singles “Freedom,” “Everything She Wants” and the ballad “Careless Whisper,” a quantifiable smash that reached No. 1 in the U.S. and stayed there for three weeks.
Other major Wham! feats include a history-making tour of China in 1985, marking the first time a Western act performed in the country. Wham! officially split in 1986, releasing a farewell single, “Edge of Heaven.”
Michael’s solo endeavors extended beyond Wham! to include an appearance on the all-star charity single "Do They Know It's Christmas?" in 1984 and a duet with Aretha Franklin, “I Knew You Were Waiting,” in 1987, which won a Grammy Award in 1988 for Best R&B Performance — Duo or Group with Vocal. But it was his first solo album, Faith, released in 1987, which catapulted him to a virtually unprecedented level of fame.
Beginning with racy first single "I Want Your Sex," which was banned by some radio stations due to its sexually suggestive lyrics (American Top 40 host Casey Kasem would not say the song’s name on the air) and its video relegated to late-night plays on MTV, but still shot to No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100, Faith’s title track would lock in what would later become one of the best-selling albums of all time. (Billboard estimates George Michael has sold 20.7 million albums in the U.S. over the course of his career — combining both his solo work and that of Wham! That number blends Recording Industry Association of America [RIAA] sales certification data through early 1991 and Nielsen Music’s electronically tracked point-of-sale information from 1991 to present.)
Followed by singles “Faith,” “Father Figure,” “One More Try," “Monkey” and "Kissing a Fool," Faith spent 51 non-consecutive weeks in the Top 10 of the Billboard 200, eventually selling more than 10 million copies in the U.S., according to the RIAA, and winning the Grammy for Album of the Year in 1989. That year, Michael was also honored by MTV at the MTV Video Music Awards, where he received the Video Vanguard honor.
Subsequent solo album Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1, released in Sept. 1990, yielded hit singles in “Praying for Time” and “Freedom ’90.” However, Michael felt his label Sony did not adequately promote the album (the company claimed the album's few videos, which didn't feature Michael in the clips, resulted in its weak performance) and it led to years of discord with the company. Instead, Michael released music — the single "Too Funky" — via the charity Red Hot + Dance for the Red Hot Organization.
In late 1992, Michael went to court in an attempt to break free from his recording contract with Sony Music Entertainment. He parted with the company in 1995, signing with DreamWorks for North America and Virgin elsewhere. Sources close to the negotiations at the time said Sony was to receive a cash sum of $30 million to $40 million as a payment to release Michael. This was to be paid by DreamWorks and Virgin against their earnings from the release of subsequent albums.
Though he would not come out as gay officially until 2007, Michael was open about bisexuality and matters of sex in general. But an incident on April 7 1998, an arrest for “engaging in a lewd act" in a public restroom of the Will Rogers Memorial Park in Beverly Hills, would forever link him with the topic of sex. According to reports, Michael was approached by an undercover policeman for a sexual act. He later pleaded no contest to the charge.
Scraps with the law and the tabloids would continue for the next decade. In July 2006, Michael was accused of anonymous public sex at London's Hampstead Heath. Earlier that year, he was also arrested for drug possession, and was released without incident, and in 2008 and again in 2010 received a DUI in the U.K. for driving under the influence of drugs. He joked often about his prolific use of marijuana.
Appearances on U.K. television shows like Top of the Pops and So Graham Norton, and with the likes of Elton John, like on the 1991 duet “Don’t Let the Sun Go Down on Me,” kept Michael in the public eye for the rest of the 1990s and into the 2000s. In 2006, Michael embarked on his first world tour in 15 years, called 25 Live. It coincided with a two-disc album called Twenty Five, released in 2008 and featuring duets with Paul McCartney and Mary J. Blige along with new songs.
All told, Michael only released five solo albums — Faith, Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1, Older, Songs From the Last Century (a covers/standards albums) and Patience. He also released two greatest hits sets. His first live album, Symphonica, was his final album during his lifetime, released in 2014, and also the last album produced by the late Phil Ramone.
Michael would become more reclusive as the years went on. In the U.S., Michael was seen in the TV series Eli Stone and performed on American Idol in 2008. He also released a new track that year called “December Song,” via his website for free. His pop culture relevance would not dissipate, however, with Michael showing up prominently in the comedy Keanu as well as the end of the film Deadpool.
In 2011, Michael also released a cover of Stevie Wonder's "You and I" as a wedding gift to Prince William and Catherine Middleton. A month after the April nuptials, Michael announced dates of a European Symphonica Tour to kick off in late August. In November, however, Michael canceled the remainder of the dates after battling pneumonia. Health problems would persist in the coming months and years, with Michael ending up in an intensive care unit and later revealing that he had undergone a tracheotomy.
Throughout his life, Michael remained active in many charities, performing concerts to raise money a myriad of causes, including HIV research and awareness, aid for children and animal welfare.
Friends, colleagues and musicians paid tribute to Michael on Christmas Day, including The Late Late Show's James Corden and Ben Winston, who credited Michael with inspiring "Carpool Karaoke" after their Red Nose Day sketch in 2011.
Actor and fellow gay rights activist George Takei paid tribute with Michael's own song titles: "Rest with the glittering stars, George Michael. You've found your Freedom, your Faith. It was your Last Christmas, and we shall miss you."
Elton John took to Twitter early Monday morning to say he was in "deep shock." Adding, "I have lost a beloved friend - the kindest, most generous soul and a brilliant artist." ||||| FILE - In this Wednesday, May, 11, 2011 file photo, George Michael poses for the cameras at an event to announce his European Orchestral tour in London. Michael, who rocketed to stardom with WHAM! and... (Associated Press)
FILE - In this Wednesday, May, 11, 2011 file photo, George Michael poses for the cameras at an event to announce his European Orchestral tour in London. Michael, who rocketed to stardom with WHAM! and went on to enjoy a long and celebrated solo career lined with controversies, has died, his publicist... (Associated Press)
LONDON (AP) — George Michael, the British pop superstar who reached early fame with WHAM! and went on to a solo career lined with controversies and chart-topping hits that blended soul and dance music with daring social and personal commentary, has died, his publicist said Sunday. He was 53.
Michael died at his home in Goring, England. His publicist, Cindi Berger, said he had not been ill. Michael's manager, Michael Lippman, says the cause of death was heart failure. His family issued a statement through Thames Valley Police saying that he "passed away peacefully at home over the Christmas period.
"The family would ask that their privacy be respected at this difficult and emotional time. There will be no further comment at this stage."
Before Lippmann's announcement, police issued a statement calling the death "unexplained but not suspicious" and that "a post mortem will be undertaken in due course."
The loss of Michael continues a year of grief in the music industry, with David Bowie, Prince and Glenn Frey among those dying before age 70.
One of the giants of '80s and '90s music, and an early idol for the MTV generation, Michael enjoyed immense popularity from the start with hits such as "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go," ''Young Guns (Go For It)" and "Freedom." As a solo artist, he developed into a more serious singer and songwriter, lauded by critics for his powerful vocal and expressive range. He sold well over 100 million albums globally, earned numerous Grammy and American Music Awards, and recorded duets with Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, Luciano Pavarotti and Elton John among others.
"I have lost a beloved friend — the kindest, most generous soul and a brilliant artist," Elton John wrote on Instagram.
He reached the very heights of success, but agonized over being a celebrity. He spoke of cutting back on tours and interviews and letting his work speak for itself. One aging superstar thought he was behaving like a fool: In a public letter dated Sept. 9, 1990, Frank Sinatra advised Michael to "loosen up" and "swing, man."
"The tragedy of fame is when no one shows up and you're singing to the cleaning lady in some empty joint that hasn't seen a paying customer since Saint Swithin's day," Sinatra wrote.
Michael, with tailored good looks and an easy stage manner, formed the duo WHAM! with his school friend Andrew Ridgeley in the early 1980s. Helped by MTV, founded around the same time, easily crossed the Atlantic to become popular in the United States with Michael, as lead singer, usually the focal point.
He started his solo career shortly before WHAM! split, with the release of the megahit single "Careless Whisper," making a seamless transition. Critics generally viewed his WHAM! songs as catchy but disposable pop and gave his solo efforts far higher marks.
Throughout his career, his drug use and taste for risky sex brought him into frequent brushes with the law, most famously in 1998 when he was arrested for public lewdness in Los Angeles. Yet, he managed to turn the incident into fodder for a popular song that poked fun at his behavior, and his acknowledgment of his homosexuality at that time made him even more popular with his fans.
His first solo album, 1987's "Faith," sold more 20 million copies, and he enjoyed several hit singles including the raunchy "I Want Your Sex," which was helped immeasurably by a provocative video that received wide air play on MTV.
The song was controversial not only because of its explicit nature, but also because it was seen as encouraging casual sex and promiscuity at a time when the AIDS epidemic was deepening. Michael and his management tried to tamp down this point of view by having the singer write "Explore Monogamy" on the leg and back of a model in the video.
At the time, Michael had not disclosed his homosexuality, and much of his chart success was based on his sex appeal to young women. His look was raw and provocative, with tight jeans, tight T-shirts, black leather jackets and designer stubble, and his videos pushed the accepted limits with many lingerie-clad models vying for Michael's attentions on screen.
But Michael's situation changed abruptly in 1998 when he was arrested for lewd conduct in a public toilet in Los Angeles after being spotted by a male undercover police officer.
The arrest received international media attention, and seemed for a brief time to jeopardize Michael's stature as a top recording artist.
But instead of making excuses for his behavior, he went on to release a single and video, "Outside," that made light of the charges against him and mocked the Los Angeles police who had arrested him.
Like all of his efforts at the time, it sold in prodigious numbers, helping him put the incident behind him. The arrest also prompted him to speak openly about his sexual orientation.
These years represented the height of Michael's commercial success, which at times was marred by a protracted legal dispute with his record company Sony.
He remained a strong musical force throughout his career, releasing dozens of records and touring to adoring crowds despite a growing number of run-ins with police, many of them stemming from a series of driving-under-the-influence-of-drugs incidents, including several crashes.
Michael was an acknowledged user of marijuana and prescription sedatives and several times was found slumped over his car's steering wheel after using both at the same time.
His driver's license was finally revoked for five years in 2010 after Michael drove his Land Rover into the side of a Snappy Snap photo shop with so much force that his vehicle dented the wall.
A passer-by remembering Michael's early career wrote the word WHAM on the spot his SUV had hit.
He was also arrested a second time in public toilets — this time in North London in 2008 for drug use, an incident that prompted him to apologize to his fans and promise to get his life in order.
He also offered an apology to "everybody else, just for boring them."
A year earlier, he had told a television interviewer that his problems stemmed from a self-destructive streak and his attention-seeking nature.
He said at a press conference in 2011 that he felt he had let young people down with his misbehavior and had made it easier for others to denigrate homosexuals.
Despite these personal setbacks, Michael's musical performances remained strong even as his material moved farther from the teen tunes that first brought him to stardom.
The Telegraph newspaper in 2011 described a London concert appearance as an impressive event, calling his voice, "A rich, soulful instrument, it's capable of serious emotional heft, expertly matching the confessional tone of his own material."
Michael, with strong Greek-Cypriot roots, was born Georgios Panayiotou in England. He and schoolmate Ridgeley formed a ska band called the Executive when they were just 16 before moving on to form WHAM!
"I wanted to be loved," said Michael of his start in the music field. "It was an ego satisfaction thing."
Michael was active in a number of charities and helped raise money to combat AIDS, help needy children and support gay rights. He had a long-term relationship with Kenny Goss, but announced onstage in August 2011 that the two had broken up | George Michael's death at age 53 was unexpected but definitely not suspicious, according to longtime manager Michael Lippman. He says the beloved English pop star died of heart failure and was found at home "in bed, lying peacefully." The manager says he is "devastated" by the loss, per the Hollywood Reporter, and adds while that the exact time of death is unclear, it is clear there was "no foul play whatsoever." Police earlier issued a statement saying the death was "unexplained but not suspicious" and that "a post mortem will be undertaken in due course," the AP reports. (Fellow celebrities that survived 2016 are paying tribute to the star.) |
iPad mini Review: Apple aims for the everyman
It’s an iPad, but smaller. Boiling down the iPad mini to its core premise may not tell you everything you need to know about the 7.9-inch tablet, but it does set the scene: Apple’s legendary build quality, iOS and the hundreds of thousands of tablet apps in the App Store, and a guarantee that it’s going to polarize consumers. Steve Jobs memorably dismissed smaller tablets, and yet Apple couldn’t have been more enthusiastic about its mini model at the launch event last week. Read on to find out whether, for a small slate, the iPad mini is actually a big deal.
Hardware
At first glance, the iPad mini’s familial resemblance is obvious. Available in white and black finishes – with matching aluminum rear shells, unlike the full-sized iPad with Retina display, which only changes bezel color – it’s considerably reduced in size, down 23-percent in thickness at 0.28-inches deep, and down 53-percent in weight, at 0.68-pounds for the Wi-Fi-only model.
It’s the width and length which are most notable, however. Held in portrait orientation, the 5.3-inch frame is easy to grip in a single hand, your fingers tucked around the edges without feeling stretched. It makes the iPad mini a legitimate alternative to a Kindle or other, similarly-sized e-reader, light enough and scaled the right way to grip for extended periods in bed. The 7.87-inch length, meanwhile, makes for a tablet that’s great for thumb-typing when held in landscape orientation, the iPad mini cradled in your hands.
Inside, there’s a dual-core 1GHz processor, the same Apple A5 dualcore as in the iPad 2, along with a choice of 16GB, 32GB, or 64GB of storage. All versions have the same Wi-Fi a/b/g/n – with dual-band 802.11n support, for improved range and speeds with compatible routers – and Bluetooth 4.0, while Apple also offers Wi-Fi + Cellular models that support LTE on select networks (and HSPA+/DC-HSDPA on others). The cellular iPad mini also has true GPS and GLONASS, while the Wi-Fi-only makes do with assisted-GPS.
Both variants use Apple’s new Lightning connector, and have a mono speaker and a stereo headset jack that, with a wired hands-free kit such as comes with the iPhone 5, can be used for voice calls such as over Skype. The cameras are carried over from the full-sized iPad, with a 1.2-megapixel front-facer above the display that supports 720p HD video recording as well as FaceTime calls over both Wi-Fi and cellular connections.
On the back, there’s a 5-megapixel camera with a backside-illuminated sensor, five-element lens, hybrid IR filter, and autofocus; the size of the iPad mini makes it a far more comfortable device to actually use to take photos with, unlike the 9.7-inch iPad which can feel somewhat unwieldy and seems more suited to the occasional, impromptu shot when your smartphone isn’t immediately to hand. Panoramic shots benefit from the smaller size of the iPad mini, which makes it easier to hold still and steadily pan across the scene.
Display
Given Steve Jobs’ well-known attitude toward 7-inch tablets, Apple was never going to launch an iPad of quite that size. Instead, the company opted for a 7.9-inch screen for the iPad mini; while that 0.9-inch extra on the diagonal may not sound like much, it actually makes for a panel that’s 35-percent larger than a 7-inch screen on, say, Google’s Nexus 7. In total, you get 29.6 square inches of display, versus the 21.9 square inches of a 7-inch panel.
The screen itself is an LCD IPS panel running at the same 1024 x 768 resolution as the iPad 2. It’s bright and clear, with great viewing angles no matter which way round you’re holding the tablet; as with the larger iPad, the iPad mini’s UI will flip to suit any of the four orientations. What you don’t get is “Retina” resolution, Apple’s shorthand for a display where the pixel density is so great that, at a typical operating distance, the average human eye can’t differentiate the individual dots.
Higher-resolution displays of a similar size to that of the iPad mini are available; Apple’s compromise, however, is to maintain compatibility. By sticking to one of the two established resolutions – either 1024 x 768. or 2048 x 1536 as on the iPad with Retina display – it means all of the applications intended for existing iPads will fit properly on the iPad mini.
Had Apple opted for a halfway measure with the ambition of increasing the pixel density from its current 163 ppi – picking a display somewhere between the resolution of the iPad 2 and the Retina version – it would have delivered smoother visuals but at the cost of simple compatibility. Developers would have to update their apps to suit a third resolution; as it stands, even though it’s a different size, the iPad mini has access to the near-300,000 iPad-friendly App Store apps out of the box.
To accommodate that particular 4:3 aspect ratio panel, and achieve that all-important fit in the hand, Apple has dramatically shaved away the bezels on the longer edges. It can leave the iPad mini looking a little unusually proportioned at first glance, compared to the thicker frame of the full-sized 9.7-inch iPad, but it’s a decision that makes sense after a little time with the tablet. As for whether the 1024 x 768 resolution itself has an impact on usability, while it’s lower than 720p HD, video playback still looks solid. Webpages at minimum magnification in the browser inevitably require at least a little zooming in order to make the text a comfortable size for reading, though that’s more down to the sheer size of the text on a display of this scale, than it is the resolution it’s rendered at.
One of the little-recognized reasons for the 9.7-inch iPad’s wider bezel is that it helps keep your thumbs away from the edges of the display when holding it. That avoids mis-touches or swipes, which can be particularly frustrating when they change page in an e-reader app like iBooks or Kindle for iOS. For the iPad mini, Apple has replaced the physical grip-space with software cleverness: the thumb-rejection system promises to differentiate between the touch of a typical grip on the body of the tablet, and a specific point of contact when selecting an app or control.
Not all apps support thumb-rejection, at least initially, and we noticed around 10- to 15-percent of the time it didn’t work as expected. However, the remainder of the time it’s surprisingly effective: you can hold the iPad mini with the edge of your thumb resting along the border of the display, without it being recognized as a touch or swipe. Apple says the number of compatible apps will increase in time, as well.
Apple offers both AirPlay Video for streaming up to 1080p Full HD to an Apple TV, or an optional video output dongle. The Lightning to Digital AV Adapter is compatible with the HDMI port found on most current TVs, while the Lightning to VGA Adapter hooks the iPad mini up to a computer display.
Software and Performance
iOS 6 on the iPad mini may be smaller than we’ve seen it on an Apple tablet before, but it’s a familiar platform and we were quickly up to speed despite the diminished scale. All of Apple’s regular apps are present – Safari, Mail, FaceTime, iTunes, Game Center, Maps, and more – along with Siri, which expanded to the iPad line over the summer. iBooks isn’t preloaded but is available free from the App Store, and now supports auto-scroll for touchless reading; again, it underscores the iPad mini’s suitability as an e-reader alternative.
The iPad mini may not have the A6X processor of the new flagship fourth-gen iPad, but the A5 is sufficient to keep things moving smoothly without making a huge dent in battery life. Navigation around iOS shows no real lag or delay, and apps load quickly; the A5 doesn’t have to drive all the pixels involved in a Retina display, after all, and so it’s overall a satisfactory experience. For those particularly curious about raw benchmarks, the iPad mini scored 757 (higher is better; the iPad with Retina display scored 1,768 in comparison) in Geekbench and completed the SunSpider test of browser JavaScript performance in 1,698.9ms (lower is better; the iPad with Retina display managed an impressive 879.2ms).
One of the more taxing challenges Apple’s tablet faces is video editing, and with its 5-megapixel camera and Full HD video capture, iMovie performance is an important metric. We tested the smaller tablet with both 1 minute and 5 minute video clips, each at both 720p and 1080p resolution. It processed the 720p short clip in 56.8 seconds, and the 1080p short clip in 1 minute 2 seconds. As for the 5-minute clip, that took 4 minutes 31 seconds for the 720p version and 4 minutes 56 seconds for the 1080p.
They’re unsurprisingly slower than the iPad with Retina display managed, but not outlandishly so, flattering to the iPad mini’s potential. Video clips can also be imported using the Lightning to SD Card Adapter or Lightning to USB Camera Adapter, making the whole thing a competent portable movie studio. Opt for a 4G version and you could shoot, edit, process, and upload your entire movie while on the move, without ever having to plug the iPad mini – or your camera – into a computer. Compatibility with Bluetooth keyboards, meanwhile, means entering text is more straightforward, in effect turning the iPad mini into a tiny workstation.
Battery
Apple quotes up to 10hrs of wireless browsing over Wi-Fi for the iPad mini, or up to 9hrs if you’re using the tablet’s cellular connection. In practice, with a mixture of browsing, some video playback, games, music – both locally-stored and streaming – and messaging, we comfortably exceeded Apple’s estimate. In fact, we exceeded 11hrs of use before encountering a battery warning.
Accessories
With the same Lightning connector as on the iPhone 5 and the iPad with Retina display, the iPad mini has access to the same range of accessories as elsewhere in Apple’s range. In addition to the external display adapters for HDMI and VGA, and the SD Card and USB Camera import cables, there’s also a new iPad mini Smart Cover.
The premise is the same as the existing Smart Cover Apple has been offering for its full-sized iPads: a flexible, rollable screen protector that both covers the display when not in use and wakes the tablet from sleep when opened. It can be folded into a stand to prop the iPad mini up at angles suited either for typing or for watching video, and attaches to the side of the slate magnetically.
Unlike the metal bar hinge of the larger Smart Cover, the iPad mini gets a new, fabric-covered design, which is sleeker and doesn’t make the tablet bulky. On the inside there’s a microfiber lining, gentle to the touchscreen, while the outside is available in a choice of six colors: dark gray, light gray, blue, green, pink, and (PRODUCT) RED.
iPad Mini vs Nexus 7
Wrap-up
As the pre-launch rumors proliferated, some questioned whether Apple really needed a product that slotted in-between the 4-inch iPhone and iPod touch, and the 9.7-inch iPad. Others questioned what sort of price bands Apple would target: whether the iPad mini would be a budget option to directly take on the spray of low-cost Android tablets.
Instead, the iPad mini is a product that’s resolutely “Apple”: it distills the essentials of the 9.7-inch iPad – iOS app compatibility, multimedia functionality, premium build quality, and comprehensive connectivity – without diluting them to unnecessarily meet a budget price point the company has no real interest in achieving. The iPad mini isn’t a cheap tablet in comparison to $199 Android-powered options, but it feels better in the hand, has a huge number of applications specifically intended for tablet use, and delivers what it promises to in a cohesive and predictable way.
What it also means is that the iPad mini isn’t the iPad you buy simply because you can’t necessarily afford the larger iPad with Retina display. There are legitimate arguments for the smaller model, not undermined by flimsy construction or compromised capabilities. If you spend much of your time mobile, the iPad mini is easier to transport; if you’re a keen reader, the iPad mini is easier to hold and navigate through. If you’re addicted to the internet and don’t want to view it through the 4-inch window of the iPhone 5 or iPod touch, Safari on the iPad mini delivers more size at a scale that’s still bag or purse-friendly.
In the end, it’s about an overall package, an experience which Apple is offering. Not the fastest tablet, nor the cheapest, nor the one that prioritizes the most pixel-dense display, but the one with the lion’s share of tablet applications, the integration with the iOS/iTunes ecosystem, the familiarity of usability and, yes, the brand cachet. That’s a compelling metric by which to judge a new product, and it’s a set of abilities that single the iPad mini out in the marketplace. If the iPad with Retina display is the flagship of Apple’s tablet range, then the iPad mini is the everyman model, and it’s one that will deservedly sell very well. ||||| Sadly, the Mini doesn’t gain Apple’s supercrisp Retina display. Nobody’s going to complain about the sharpness — it packs in 163 pixels per inch (ppi) — but it’s not the same jaw-dropping resolution as the big iPad (264 ppi). Gotta hold something back for next year’s model, right?
You pay $330 for the base model (16 gigabytes of storage, Wi-Fi connections). Prices run all the way up to $660 for four times the storage and the option to go online over the cell network.
By pricing the Mini so high, Apple allows the $200 class of seven-inch Android tablets and readers to live (Google Nexus, Kindle Fire HD, Nook HD). Those tablets also, by the way, have high-definition screens (1,280 by 800 pixels), which the Mini doesn’t.
But the iPad Mini is a far classier, more attractive, thinner machine. It has two cameras instead of one. Its fit and finish are far more refined. And above all, it offers that colossal app catalog, which Android tablet owners can only dream about.
Over all, the Mini gives you all the iPad goodness in a more manageable size, and it’s awesome. You could argue that the iPad Mini is what the iPad always wanted to be.
Photo
Barnes & Noble Nook HD
The redesign of this $200 e-book reader/video player focuses on the three things that matter most in a hand-held e-book reader: weight, size and screen clarity.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
In those ways, the Nook HD trounces its nemeses, Amazon’s Kindle Fire HD and Google’s Nexus 7. The Nook is lighter (11.1 ounces, versus 12 on the Nexus and 13.9 on the Kindle) and noticeably narrower, despite the same-size screen, because it has a far slimmer bezel. You can wrap your hand around its back, even if you’re dainty of hand.
And the screen is much sharper: 1,440 by 900 pixels (versus 1,280 by 800). At 243 dots ppi, the Nook’s screen comes dangerously close to the iPad Retina’s 264 ppi. Wow, is this screen sharp. Movies, books and magazines pop.
Whites are so white on this screen, it could be a Clorox commercial; the Nexus and Kindle screens look yellowish in comparison. (A 9-inch, $270 version, the Nook HD+, is also available.)
The software continues to improve. You can now create up to six accounts, one for each family member, each listing different books and movies. (It doesn’t remember where each person stopped reading a given book, but B&N says that’s coming soon.)
The base-model, $200 Nook comes with only 8 gigabytes of storage — half as much as the Kindle; on the other hand, it has a memory-card slot, so it’s simple and cheap to expand. The Nook includes a wall charger (it can’t charge from a USB jack), which the Kindle doesn’t. And the Nook doesn’t display ads, as the $200 Kindle does.
Photo
However, there’s no camera at all. (The company says it spent the money on the nicer screen.) And the speaker volume is way too low during movie playback, but B&N says a fix is coming this week..
Still, in the hardware war, Nook HD clearly wins this round. The Nook HD is fast, fluid and gorgeous; the Fire HD lags in all of those categories.
Then again, Amazon’s movie service — rent, buy or stream for free as part of the $80-a-year Prime program — is mature and delightful; Barnes & Noble’s movie store is just starting up. If you can tolerate that fledgling store awhile, then you’ll love the way B&N exploited its second-mover advantage.
Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.
Windows Phone 8
The good news in touch screens continues with Windows Phone 8. It’s what you’ll get on sleek coming phones like the Nokia Lumia 920 and HTC’s Windows Phone 8X (the one I tested).
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 — a fresh, colorful, efficient, tile-based alternative to the icon-based design of iPhone and Android — earned rave reviews. But few phones run it and few people have it.
Windows Phone 8 may look identical, but the company says it’s a complete rewrite based on underlying code from Windows 8 for PCs. It’s therefore ready for far more hardware flexibility than 7 was: multi-core processors, screens with different resolutions, phones with memory cards and so on.
Photo
The Start screen is more customizable; you can choose from three different tile sizes. Apps can modify your Lock screen automatically; for example, the Groupon app might display a special offer that’s tailored to where you are right now.
If you swipe leftward from the Lock screen, you enter Kid Corner, a truly inspired idea. It’s a quarantined world containing only apps, music and videos that you’ve handpicked for your offspring. Next time you hear, “I’m bored — can I play on your phone?” you can hand the phone over without worry; the phone, Web and text messages are off-limits.
More solid improvements: The desktop software can load the phone with your iTunes music and video libraries. “Rooms” are private groups — Bowling Buddies, Teen Party and so on — whose members can share their locations, calendars, photos and chats. You can now back up the phone online.
Two juicy features are promised for the coming months: a “pay with your phone” option brought to you by NFC (near-field communication) chips in phones, and Data Sense, which tries to conserve Internet data and monitors your monthly allotment.
Microsoft’s phone software is fast, simple and beautiful. But it still lacks universal dictation for quick text entry. Its new Maps app doesn’t offer spoken directions (in 2012? seriously?). And the audience won’t come until there are more great apps.
There are promising signs; Microsoft says there are 110,000 Windows Phone apps, and that software companies can reuse chunks of code from their Windows 8 programs. That should make it easier to bring new apps to the phone.
So there you have it: three touch-screen tech toys, each triumphant in its own way. One comes from a market leader hoping to swipe business from its bargain-basement rivals; two come from underdogs determined to make a bigger dent.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
None of these products are themselves perfect. But they represent new highs on the graph that plots price against polish and pleasure — and for gadget lovers, that portends some very merry holidays indeed. ||||| Remember the iPod mini? When Apple launched that in January 2004, at a time when a huge swathe of the fast-growing digital music player market was still up for grabs, people thought Apple was crazy. Only 4GB of storage – less than in the original 5GB model launched in 2001? A $249 price tag – only $50 less than the base level "iPod". Well, said the critics, Apple had finally messed up after a couple of years of getting it right. It was doomed.
Turned out it wasn't; the iPod mini became the best-selling iPod (until the iPod nano in September 2005).
Why point this out? Because much the same critique has been applied to the iPad mini, Apple's 7.85in device. It's just smaller (though nobody seems to be calling it "a big iPod Touch" – perhaps that wore thin after the first few thousand times following the original iPad's launch). It's too pricey; there are others which are already in the market.
As I've said earlier, there are some key differences between the iPod market of 2004 and today's mini-tablet market. The key one is that in the 2004 market, all the rivals needed to make a profit on their hardware; they couldn't make it up from selling music. This time round, Amazon and Google in particular can sell the hardware at a loss in order to goose their market share, if not immediately their profits. So Apple has a fight on its hands in pricing, not just design.
But let's by dealing with the iPad mini as it is, on its own terms.
Build quality: seamless
Jonathan Ive doesn't like seams. He doesn't like any sort of break in the surface of objects, even manufactured ones. One of the notable things about the first iPod was that there was no obvious way to break it open, and the trend in all of Apple products – including the computers – is the same.
You'll do well to get a scalpel blade between the iPad mini's screen and its bezel. There's no flex in the body; it's really solid. I was using a black model; it isn't obviously metal until you touch it. As with its bigger sibling, the headphone jack is on the top – unlike the iPhone 5, where it has migrated to the bottom.
Dimensions
This is worthy of mention because everyone has been focused on the Amazon Kindle Fire in comparison to the iPad mini (and of course Google Nexus 7). I compared an iPad mini beside a Kindle Fire, and was surprised to find that they're almost exactly the same size in both width and length, though the iPad mini is thinner.
Similarly, compare it with the Nexus 7. Here are the figures for the iPad mini: 199mm x 133mm; the Nexus 7, 198.5mm x 120mm. You get 1.3cm – that's half an inch - width difference between the Nexus 7 and the iPad mini. This surprised me – I thought that the iPad mini would be substantially wider. But it's not, and at that width you can slip it into an outside jacket pocket or a roomy coat pocket or, of course, a bag.
How though does the iPad mini manage to be so small if it has a 7.85in screen, while the others have just 7in screens? By having a much thinner border along the long edges. It's 20mm wide at the short edges, but just 5mm on the long ones. This isn't just a shrunk-down iPad, where the borders are 20mm and 17mm (short, long). Apple has made a definite effort to create something that can be slipped into generous pockets.
Weight
What will surprise you is the weight. The specs already show that the iPad mini is lighter than the Kindle Fire, 308g v 395g (and 340g for the Nexus 7); even if you add on a Smart Cover, it's still lighter than the uncovered Kindle Fire. It's thinner too. This is a device that will be ideal for holding in one hand for reading on train rides or other commuting; or you might even forget it's in that coat pocket.
What the iPod mini demonstrated, and what the MacBook Air demonstrated, and pretty much every breakthrough in mobility demonstrates, is that lighter is better – and if you can do lighter and bigger, you're really onto a winner. (This is part of how the Samsung Galaxy S3 has done so well: big screen, light phone.)
The iPad mini (308g) feels like it isn't really there. Certainly you'll not get tired of holding it, which could happen with the iPad (652g).
Battery life
As with previous iPads, battery life is easily in the nine-hour-plus mark. Charging is via the new Lightning connector, and as with the iPhone, the iPad now recharges very quickly – half an hour will easily add four or five times as much use. I didn't get a chance to try it out on a 4G/LTE network, so don't know how that affects battery life. (Mobile versions sold in the UK will initially be compatible with EE's 1800MHz network, and Three's next year.)
Screen
It's not a retina screen! It's only 1024x768, so that the resolution is 163ppi. This has been a big complaint (or snark, in some cases) that I've heard from people who haven't laid eyes on this device. If all you read is specifications, then the iPad mini screen is far worse than the Kindle Fire's or Nexus 7's, right?
Well, put them beside each other, and the story changes. Web page rendering on the Kindle Fire is, frankly, awful. It's blocky, and there's a yellowish cast which personally I dislike. The iPad mini is bright, and white, and the text rendering is good – and there's no obvious pixellation. Kindle books look as good on the iPad mini as on the Kindle Fire. (The latter is optimised for reading those, but not for the web; Amazon would rather you bought books than surfed the web.) Icons on the iPad mini look sharp; on the Kindle Fire, not really.
Scrolling
With long lists, it's smooth and untroubled; this is something Apple has prioritised. Again, the comparison with Android, where scrolling has always been a bugbear, is stark; get a long article with lots of comments on a website, and you'll get a smooth scroll. That's not always the case on Android devices, where some will give jerky performance, no matter how many cores their processor has. Specs, eh? They can lead you astray.
Setup experience
If you have an iOS device already – iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad – then you can log into your iCloud account and all the apps and content you've already bought, plus all your settings including alarms can be transferred wirelessly. (If you've got multiple devices backed up, you get to choose which it's restored from. Alternatively, you can just use a wire and an iTunes backup.) Android tries, but doesn't quite get to the granular level that iCloud does, and that's a big difference in user-friendliness.
User accounts
There aren't any. This is the biggest failing in iOS at present. Now that Google has announced that Android will support a form of user accounts on tablets, and Windows Phone 8 offers "Kids Corner" (fenced-off apps you can let the kids use), and Windows RT tablets support multiple signins, iOS is starting to look like the odd one out. One tablet per person is great for Apple, but it's not so great for the squeezed middle. Single-user iPhones yes; multi-user iPads, yes please.
Keyboard
Of course, there isn't an inbuilt keyboard. But the question is, is the onscreen version too small to type on? No – used in landscape or portrait, the keys are large enough even for my hands. Despite the smaller screen, touch targets aren't too small either. In short, you can still type quite accurately (and certainly more accurately than on an iPhone) and manipulate onscreen objects. I don't think that many app developers will be redoing their existing iPad 2 apps.
In fact, games developers are quite excited by the idea of the iPad mini, because they reckon it will mean more players using the device in landscape mode who will be able to span the bottom of the screen with their thumbs (personally, I could) – something that was impossible with the iPad, which anyway gets too heavy.
Cameras
Available front and back – here's an example shot with the camera on the back. There's no Panorama option with the rear camera, which is a strange omission.
Apps
Existing iPad apps work perfectly well. I tried the Brian Cox Wonders app, which includes videos. I criticised the Nexus 7 for the extent of letterboxing on its 16:9 screen, so will I do the same for the iPad mini?
Yup – you get some pretty hefty letterboxing here too. Here's the thing, though: because the border around the long edges is so much thinner than at the edges, the overall effect is no worse than the Nexus 7; given that proportionally less of the space is lost to the border, you could argue it's a less compromised experience.
For comparison, here's the Nexus 7 letterboxing:
It might not be immediately obvious, but if you look closely then you can see that the physical border is much wider in the Nexus 7 than on the iPad mini.
iPhone apps' behaviour can be hit-and-miss: some fit the screen neatly when expanded to the "2x" size, others overlap the edges (I'm looking at you, Tube Deluxe), others just look blocky (hello, Amazon – though there is a proper Amazon iPad app). There isn't the spare room that the larger iPad has around the edges when you expand the size of the iPhone app on the mini's screen. Then again, with the huge number of iPad apps available, this probably won't be a problem.
Price
Yes, let's talk about the price. As mentioned above, Apple isn't looking to race to the bottom on price, because its objective (make a profit on hardware) isn't aligned to that of Google and Amazon (sell hardware near cost, profit on content or from users' web browsing). That said, at £269 ($329) for the 16GB model, you're getting an impressively light, small tablet which (if you buy the connectors, or have them) can take your camera pictures, or just take pictures itself. There's AirPlay, the wireless audio and video connection – if you have an AppleTV (£99) ($99) then you can run iPlayer on the iPad and "throw" it over to the AppleTV and watch it on a big screen; no wires. And it's not hugely more expensive than the Nexus 7, though the Kindle Fire is much cheaper. If price is your only consideration, though, an iPad probably hasn't been on your shopping list anyway.
Conclusion
Those in favour: excellent build quality; very light, comparatively large screen, not significantly wider than competition (for putting in coat pockets), excellent text rendering, huge selection of apps, music, books and films, pain-free setup from iCloud backups for existing accounts; 3G/4G LTE option; fast-growing range of accessories.
Those against: price is higher than rivals – at £239 ($329), it's £40 ($130) more than the 16GB Nexus 7; no expandable storage; letterboxing of films; no HDMI out (though AirPlay is a wireless equivalent).
Lining those pluses and minuses up against those for the Nexus 7 – which garnered four stars – there's no doubt that this is indeed a five-star device. The 20% difference in comparative price is more than made up by the difference in build quality and software selection.
Apple is going to sell a lot of these – quite possibly more than the "large" iPad – in this quarter. The only way Apple could improve on this product would be (as some people are already agitating) to give it a retina screen and somehow make it lighter. That might happen at some point. You can wait if you like; other people, in the meantime, will be buying this one.
This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk ||||| And, of course, it gives access to Apple's ecosystem of hundreds of thousands of tablet-friendly apps -- plus all the media iTunes has to offer. We can't help you decide which ecosystem, Apple or Google's, is better-suited to your interests, but we do imagine that will be the deciding factor for most. When it comes down to hardware, it's almost no contest between the two, with the iPad mini clearly winning out -- except in one area. That's the display. The Nexus 7 has a higher-resolution panel that's also 16:9, making it better for movie watching. It's also narrower, and thus easier to hold in your hand.
We'd also be remiss if we didn't at least mention the $199 Kindle Fire HD. Amazon's latest also offers a higher-resolution, IPS LCD and has the extra selling point of stereo speakers. It also has a strong suite of content, courtesy of Amazon's many partnerships, but overall we have a hard time comparing these two. Amazon's device is clearly a cut-rate slate designed to push as much digital buying power into the hands of consumers as possible, while Apple's is simply a legitimately nice tablet. It's a legitimately nice tablet that Apple certainly would love for you to fill with premium content downloaded through iTunes, but it never feels like a shopping portal. The Kindle does.
Accessories
Surely, the most popular accessory for the iPad mini will be the new Smart Cover that, despite being both smaller and of considerably simpler construction, still costs the same $39 as the bigger, 10-inch version. That's a little unfortunate, especially because we don't think this version works as well. There is one positive change: the smaller Smart Cover moves away from the aluminum hinge on the bigger version, a good thing because we've seen plenty of scratches caused by that metal-on-metal contact.
It's still attached magnetically, but where the 10-inch model will immediately snap into the perfect placement every time, we found the mini cover just as eager to attach either too high or too low. It requires a little more precision. Hardly a deal-breaker (how often are you removing your Smart Cover?) but a bit of an annoyance.
The other accessories, and there are plenty of them, all make use of the device's Lightning connector, many existing only to add a little more life to your various iPod docks and chargers. The stubby 30-pin to Lightning adapter is $29, the same cost as the two camera adapters: one USB and one SD. (This is a change from the 30-pin Camera Connection Kit, which included both for $29.) The Lightning to 30-pin adapter (which includes a 0.2 meter cable in the middle) costs $39 and, finally, both the VGA and digital AV adapters are $49. Like the previous Digital AV adapter (which was $39), this one includes HDMI output and has an input so that you can still charge the tablet while it's in use. Handy for those digital signage applications -- or getting in one final, epic Lord of the Rings marathon before December.
Wrap-up
This isn't just an Apple tablet made to a budget. This isn't just a shrunken-down iPad. This is, in many ways, Apple's best tablet yet, an incredibly thin, remarkably light, obviously well-constructed device that offers phenomenal battery life. No, the performance doesn't match Apple's latest and yes, that display is a little lacking in resolution, but nothing else here will leave you wanting. At $329, this has a lot to offer over even Apple's more expensive tablets.
Those comparing this to the Kindle Fire HD will have a hard time, as that's a tablet manufactured to a fixed cost and designed to sell you content. This is very much more. Similarly, the hardware here -- the materials, the lightness, the build quality, the overall package as it sits in your hand -- is much nicer than the Nexus 7 and it offers access to the comprehensively more tablet-friendly App Store, but whether that's worth the extra cost depends entirely on the size of your budget -- and your proclivity toward Android.
Regardless, the iPad mini is well worth considering for anybody currently in the market for a tablet. Its cost is compelling, its design superb and it of course gives access to the best selection of tablet-optimized apps on the market. To consider it just a cheap, tiny iPad is a disservice. This is, simply, a great tablet.
Update: This review originally stated (as does Apple's spec page) that the iPad mini has a mono speaker. It is, in fact, a stereo device.
[Last photo by Will Lipman] | Reviews of Apple's recently announced iPad Mini are hitting the streets, and critics are almost universally swooning over the baby iPad. Here's a look at what they're saying: Like pretty much everyone else, David Pogue, writing for the New York Times, loves the size. Not quite small enough for a blazer pocket, he notes, but still a great fit in your hand. "You could argue that the iPad mini is what the iPad always wanted to be." A lot of the chatter is about the screen, and some reviewers are upset that the iPad Mini doesn't feature a retina display like those on the iPad. But over at Business Insider, Charles Arthur says not to worry. The display "is bright, and white, and the text rendering is good—and there's no obvious pixellation." Vincent Nguyen praises the Mini as an "everyman machine," though its price tag ($360 for the base model) doesn't necessarily mean it's the tablet to buy when you can't afford the bigger version, he writes for Slashgear. It's great for those who are mobile a lot, enjoy reading on a tablet, or want a web-tool that's bigger than an iPod or smartphone but still "bag-friendly." The Mini is its own beast, says Tim Stevens at Engadget, and "to consider it just a cheap, tiny iPad is a disservice. This is, simply, a great tablet." |
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is an agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) that serves as the executive branch's principal advisory office on domestic and international telecommunications and information technology policies. The NTIA frequently works with other executive branch agencies to develop and present the Administration's position on key policy matters. It represents the executive branch in both domestic and international telecommunications and information policy activities. Policy areas in which NTIA acts as the representative of the Administration include international negotiations regarding global agreements on spectrum management and domestic use of spectrum resources by federal agencies. In recent years, one of the responsibilities of NTIA has been to oversee the transfer of some radio frequencies from the federal domain to the commercial domain. Many of these frequencies have subsequently been auctioned to the commercial sector and the proceeds paid into the U.S. Treasury. The NTIA administers some grants programs, including—at present—the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and the Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) grant program. As required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 ( P.L. 112-96 ), the NTIA is in the process of establishing requirements for a $135 million grant program to help states plan for participation in a new, nationwide public safety broadband network. To deploy the new network, the act established the First Responder Network Authority, or FirstNet, within the NTIA and assigned the agency various responsibilities to support FirstNet. The NTIA fulfills many responsibilities for different constituencies. Its role in federal spectrum management includes acting as a facilitator and mediator in negotiations among the various federal agencies regarding usage, priority access, causes of interference, and other radio spectrum questions. As the agency responsible for managing spectrum used by federal agencies, the NTIA often works in consultation with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on matters concerning spectrum access, technology, and policy. The FCC regulates private sector, state, local, and tribal spectrum use. Because many spectrum issues are international in scope and negotiated through treaty-making, the NTIA and the FCC collaborate with the Department of State in representing American interests. NTIA leads and participates in interagency efforts to develop Internet policy. It plays a lead role in the DOC's Internet Policy Task Force. The NTIA and the National Institute of Standards (NIST) have adjoining facilities on the Department of Commerce campus in Boulder, CO, where they collaborate on research projects with each other and with other federal agencies, such as the FCC. The NTIA works with the Rural Utilities Service in coordinating loans and grants made through BTOP and with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in overseeing grants made through the PSIC grants program. NTIA collaborates with NIST, DHS, and the FCC in providing expertise and guidance to public safety agencies who are using PSIC or BTOP funds to build new wireless networks for broadband communications. NTIA policies and programs are administered through The Office of Spectrum Management (OSM), which formulates and establishes plans and policies that ensure the effective, efficient, and equitable use of the spectrum both nationally and internationally. Through the development of long range spectrum plans, the OSM works to address future federal government spectrum requirements, including public safety operations and the coordination and registration of federal government satellite networks. The OSM also handles the frequency assignment needs of the federal agencies and provides spectrum certification for new federal agency radio communication systems. The Office of Policy Analysis and Development (OPAD), which is the domestic policy division of NTIA. OPAD supports NTIA's role as principal adviser to the Executive Branch and the Secretary of Commerce on telecommunications and information policies by conducting research and analysis and preparing policy recommendations. The Office of International Affairs (OIA), which develops and implements policies to enhance U.S. companies' ability to compete globally in the information technology and communications (ICT) sectors. In consultation with other U.S. agencies and the U.S. private sector, OIA participates in international and regional fora to promote policies that open ICT markets and encourage competition. The Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (ITS), which is the research and engineering laboratory of NTIA. ITS provides technical support to NTIA in advancing telecommunications and information infrastructure development, enhancing domestic competition, improving U.S. telecommunications trade opportunities, and promoting more efficient and effective use of the radio spectrum. The Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications (OTIA), which administers grant programs that further the deployment and use of technology in America, and the advancement of other national priorities. Many decisions regarding the use of federal spectrum are also made through the Interdepartmental Radio Access Committee, IRAC. IRAC membership comprises representatives of all branches of the U.S. military and a number of federal department agencies affected by spectrum management decisions. Enacted legislation for FY2012 has provided $45.6 million to the NTIA for salaries and expenses, an increase over the previous year of 9.6% but 18.4% less than requested by the Administration. The Administration had requested $55.8 million for Salaries and Expenses for FY2012, an increase of $14.3 million over FY2011-enacted appropriations of $41.6 million. The Administration request represented a significant increase over the $21.8 million requested for Salaries and Expenses for FY2011 and the $19.999 million appropriated for that category in FY2010. The increase is largely attributable to the costs of administration and oversight of the $4.4 billion Recovery Act program for broadband technologies and deployment mapping, as required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-5 ). Total requests for all oversight programs administered by the NTIA totaled $32.3 million for FY2012. In addition, the Administration requested new funding for the NTIA of $1.7 million to support efforts to foster new wireless broadband technologies and of $1.0 million for its Internet Innovation initiative to address Internet-based privacy principles. In the past, the OTIA has awarded grants from the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, which was terminated by Congress in FY2011. This program has helped public broadcasting stations and other organizations construct facilities to bring educational and cultural programs to the American public. Funding for the program, Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction (PTFPC), was not reauthorized and has been discontinued. For FY2013, the Administration proposes $46.9 million for NTIA salaries and expenses. This is an increase of 2.9% over the enacted FY2012 budget amount of $45.6 million. An FY2013 Continuing Resolution ( P.L. 112-175 ) for appropriations is in effect until March 27, 2013. The Administration and Congress have taken steps to increase the amount of radio frequency spectrum available for mobile services such as access to the Internet. The increasingly popular smart phones and tablets require greater spectrum capacity (broadband) than the services of earlier generations of cell phones. Proposals from policy makers to use federal spectrum to provide commercial mobile broadband services include: Clearing federal users from designated frequencies for transfer to the commercial sector through a competitive bidding system. Sharing federal frequencies with specific commercial users. Improving the efficiency of federal spectrum use and management. Using emerging technologies for network management to allow multiple users to share spectrum as needed. The NTIA supports the Administration's policy goal of increasing spectrum capacity for mobile broadband by 500 MHz. To this purpose, NTIA, with input from the Policy and Plans Steering Group (PPSG), has produced a 10-year plan and timetable that identifies bands of spectrum that might be available for commercial wireless broadband service. As part of its planning efforts, the NTIA prepared a "Fast Track Evaluation" of spectrum that might be made available in the near future. Specific recommendations were to make available 15 MHz of spectrum from frequencies between 1695 MHz and 1710 MHz, and 100 MHz of spectrum within bands from 3550 MHz to 3650 MHz. The fast track evaluation also recommended studying two 20 MHz bands to be identified within 4200-4400 MHz for possible repurposing, and placement for consideration of this proposal on the agenda of the World Radio Conference (WRC-2015) scheduled for 2015-2016. The NTIA also lead an evaluation process regarding commercial use of 95MHz of spectrum in the 1755-1850 MHz band, currently used by federal agencies. These frequencies are valued for commercial use in part because they are among those designated for international harmonization of advanced wireless technology. Harmonization enables important economies of scale in the production of wireless mobile equipment by providing global markets for standardized products. Federal users are completing the transfer of spectrum to commercial license-holders in the 1710-1755 MHz band, also designated for harmonization. Working through the PPSG, the NTIA studied federal spectrum use by more than 20 agencies with over 3,100 separate frequency assignments in the 1755-1850 MHz band. After evaluating the multiple steps involved in transferring current uses and users to other frequency locations, the NTIA concluded that it would cost $18,098 million to clear federal users from all 95 MHz of the band. Based on this assessment, the report included recommendations for seeking ways for federal and commercial users to share many of the frequencies, although some frequencies were identified to be cleared for auction to the private sector. The assumptions for the estimates of the cost were challenged in a congressional hearing, leading to a request to the General Accountability Office (GAO) to examine the process. The GAO provided testimony at the hearing regarding its preliminary findings on spectrum sharing. The most recent legislative action to provide more spectrum for commercial services were provisions included in Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 ( P.L. 112-96 ). The act has updated existing and specified new procedures for spectrum to be reallocated from federal government to commercial use. Under the act, the NTIA is required to work with the FCC to identify specific bands for auction. The NTIA will also be responsible for collecting auction proceeds and making distributions from a Public Safety Trust Fund that remains in effect through FY2022. Most of the proceeds from auctions of licenses in designated spectrum as specified in the act are to be deposited directly into the Public Safety Trust Fund, with these proceeds appropriated for purposes defined in the act. The act has also given the NTIA responsibilities to create and support FirstNet in planning, building, and managing a new, nationwide, broadband network for public safety communications. The act requires the NTIA, in consultation with FirstNet, to establish grant program requirements for a State and Local Implementation Fund. The NTIA is also to facilitate payments to states that participate in the deployment of the network. Separately, the NTIA will administer grants and spectrum access for states that do not participate directly in the national network and that receive permission from the FCC to build the state's part of the FirstNet network. In compliance with the act's deadline for setting up the Fund, the NTIA has published initial programmatic requirements under which it will award grants. The act has addressed how spectrum resources might be repurposed from federal to commercial use through auction or sharing, and how the cost of such reassignment would be defined and compensated, among other provisions. Although spectrum sharing to facilitate the transition from federal to commercial use is supported in the act's provisions, the NTIA has been required to give priority to reallocation options that assign spectrum for exclusive, non-federal uses through competitive bidding. The act has required the establishment of a Technical Panel within the NTIA to review transition plans that each federal agency must prepare in accordance with provisions in the act. The Technical Panel is required to have three members qualified as a radio engineer or technical expert. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, and the Chairman of the FCC have been required to appoint one member each. A full discussion and interpretation of provisions of the act as regards the technical panel and related procedural requirements such as dispute resolution have been published by the NTIA as part of the rulemaking process. The Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, located in Boulder, CO, is the research and engineering arm of NTIA. ITS provides core telecommunications research and engineering services to promote: enhanced domestic competition and new technology deployment; advanced telecommunications and information services; foreign trade opportunities for American telecommunication firms; and more efficient use of spectrum. Current areas of focus include: Research, development, testing, and evaluation to foster nationwide public safety communications interoperability; Test and Demonstration Networks to facilitate accelerated development of standards for emerging communications devices; Analysis and resolution of interference issues; and Development and testing of secure federal electronic record repositories. There are a number of works in progress that could benefit public safety communications. One example is the development and acceptance of international standards for public safety communications. Like the commercial sector, public safety could benefit from global economies of scale if there are international standards. ITS and NIST are providing important leadership in developing global standards for public safety. Spectrum allocation and assignment is not uniquely domestic. Some spectrum allocations are governed by international treaty. Additionally, there is a trend to harmonize spectrum allocations for commercial use across countries through international agreements. Harmonization of radio frequencies is achieved by designating specific bands for the same category of use worldwide. With harmonization, consumers and businesses are able to benefit from the convenience and efficiency of having common frequencies for similar uses, thus promoting development of a seamless, global communications market. Spectrum allocation at the national level, therefore, is sometimes coordinated with international spectrum allocation agreements. The Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) auction in the United States, completed in 2006, was the conclusion of a process initiated by an agreement for international harmonization of spectrum bands. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the lead United Nations agency for information and communication technologies, has been vested with responsibility to ensure interference-free operations of wireless communication through implementation of international agreements. The ITU adopts an international table of frequency allocations that shows agreed spectrum uses worldwide, and includes—directly or indirectly—conditions for the use of the allocated spectrum. There are 39 internationally defined wireless services that include broadcasting, meteorological satellite, and mobile services. There is also a domestic table for each country. The United States Table of Allocations is maintained by NTIA. The World Radio Conference (WRC), held approximately every four years, is the primary forum for negotiating international treaties on spectrum use. Each WRC provides an opportunity to revise the International Radio Regulations and International Table of Frequency Allocations in response to changes in technology and other factors. Modifications to rules from one WRC to the next are part of an ongoing process of technical review and negotiations. Separate tracks of preparations to develop the U.S. positions on WRC agenda items are handled by the FCC and the NTIA. The Office of Spectrum Management of NTIA, in consultation with federal agencies, reviews the WRC agenda and prepares its comments for the U.S. position. NTIA and the FCC solicit input from the private sector and create working groups to address specific agenda items. NTIA and the FCC submit recommendations to the Department of State. The Department of State coordinates and mediates the development of the U.S. position for each WRC and leads the U.S. delegation at each conference. All three agencies use committees and other means to interact with the private sector. Preparation for each WRC is a collaborative process that includes opportunities for affected parties to comment on and participate in the formation of U.S. policy. The U.S. delegation to each WRC includes representatives from the federal government and the private sector. Each WRC delegation is led by an Ambassador appointed for that purpose by the President. The most recent conference (WRC-12) concluded on February 17, 2012, with the signing of a new treaty covering accords on technical and regulatory matters and other issues. As is customary, the preliminary agenda for the next WRC meeting was approved during WRC-12. WRC-15 will be held in 2015-2016. | The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the Department of Commerce, is the executive branch's principal advisory office on domestic and international telecommunications and information policies. Its mandate is to provide greater access for all Americans to telecommunications services, support U.S. attempts to open foreign markets, advise on international telecommunications negotiations, and fund research for new technologies and their applications. NTIA also manages the distribution of funds for several key grant programs. Its role in federal spectrum management includes acting as a facilitator and mediator in negotiations among the various federal agencies regarding usage, priority access, causes of interference, and other radio spectrum questions. The 112th Congress, with the passage of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96), in February 2012, has given the NTIA new responsibilities in spectrum management and the support of public safety initiatives. |
Foreign assistance law requires Congress to authorize funding for programs before appropriated funds are spent. Through 1985, Congress regularly enacted new authorization legislation or amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the foundation of U.S. foreign aid policy, to update authorization time frames, and to incorporate newer programs and authorities. After 1986, however, Congress turned more frequently to enacting freestanding authorities that did not amend the 1961 Act, and waived the requirement to authorize funds before making them available in appropriations. The annual foreign operations appropriations bill funds foreign aid programs as they are defined and authorized in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Arms Export Control Act, and other related Acts. These annual measures, like all appropriations bills that fund executive branch programs and operations, include General Provisions to guide how funds may be spent. Over time, as enactment of foreign aid reauthorizations waned, the General Provisions of foreign operations appropriations measures increasingly have become a legislative option for Congress to assert its views on the role and use of U.S. foreign aid policy, put limits or conditions on assistance, or even authorize new programs. As a result, some contend, General Provisions have become more important. The greater likelihood—relative to authorization proposals, at least—that appropriations measures will be considered in committee, on the floor, in both chambers, and in conference also impacts the attractiveness of serving on an appropriations or authorization committee, and affects the relationship between authorizers and appropriators. This report identifies the legislative origins of General Provisions that pertain to foreign aid in current foreign operations appropriations: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010; P.L. 111-117 ; 123 Stat. 3034 at 3312), as continued for Fiscal Year 2011 by the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 ( P.L. 112-10 ; 125 Stat. 38; of which sec. 1101(a)(6) continues appropriations enacted in P.L. 111-117 , and division B, title XI, which provides further instruction for FY2011 foreign operations expenditures). The left column shows the General Provision section and heading, taken from P.L. 111-117 . The right column, in most instances, has two paragraphs per section. The first paragraph identifies in which section the intent or language of the General Provision first appeared, and is taken from annotations the Congressional Research Service prepares for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for their joint committee print, Legislation on Foreign Relations . The second paragraph establishes the more detailed legislative history of each provision—where and how it first appears that first year (reported out of committee, floor sponsor, or conference committee). Where available, report numbers are included. In some years, detailed information about sponsorship is not available: there is nearly no legislative history trail for new General Provisions introduced in FY2009, for example. Very few of the General Provisions are codified as notes in the U.S. Code. Very few of the General Provisions correspond with sections in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. When either condition occurs, it is noted in the right column. Most of the sections have changed over the years. The legislative histories in the right column document the introduction of the concept or intent of the General Provision, not the subsequent changes to that initial idea. Thus, an idea may be introduced and the right column identifies the committee or Member who brought the idea forward, but legislative maps of subsequent alterations, additions, changes in applicability, are not tracked. On occasion, an idea initially stated in a General Provision migrates and is incorporated into the funding titles: requirements of the Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, for example, were first stated in General Provisions but in FY2010 appropriations those requirements were folded into the title III paragraph pertaining to that entity. The goal is solely to identify the emergence of the idea. Frequently, once enacted, a General Provision is continued annually in subsequent foreign operations appropriations measures. If some portion of a section is not carried forward annually, it is noted in the right column. The short titles or popular names of annual foreign operations appropriations have changed over time. In keeping with current jargon, the table refers to each annual measure as a "Foreign Operations Appropriations" with the fiscal year to which it applies. An appendix follows the table, which provides true short titles and popular names along with Public Law numbers. Mutual Security Appropriations Act, 1958 (P.L. 85-853; 72 Stat. 1100) Foreign Assistance and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1967 (P.L. 89-691; 80 Stat. 1018) Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriation Act, 1974 (P.L. 93-240; 87 Stat. 1048) Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1976 (P.L. 94-11; 89 Stat. 17) Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1976 [transitional quarter] (P.L. 94-330; 90 Stat. 771) Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1977 (P.L. 94-441; 90 Stat. 1465) Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1978 (P.L. 95-148; 91 Stat. 1230) Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1979 (P.L. 95-481; 92 Stat. 1591) Continuing Appropriations, 1980 (P.L. 96-86; 93 Stat. 656) Continuing Appropriations, 1981 (P.L. 96-536; 94 Stat. 3166) Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-121; 95 Stat. 1647) Urgent Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-216; 96 Stat. 180) Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 1983 (P.L. 97-377; 96 Stat. 1830) Continuing Resolution, 1984 (P.L. 98-151; 97 Stat. 964) Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1985 (in Continuing Appropriations Act, 1985) (P.L. 98-473; 98 Stat. 1837 at 1884) Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1986 (in Continuing Appropriations Act, 1986) (P.L. 99-190; 99 Stat. 1185 at 1291) Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1987 (in Continuing Appropriations, 1987) (P.L. 99-591; 100 Stat. 3341 at 3341-214) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988 (sec. 101(e)) in Continuing Appropriations, 1988) (P.L. 100-202; 101 Stat. 1329 at 1329-131) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1989 (P.L. 100-461; 102 Stat. 2268) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1990 (P.L. 101-167; 103 Stat. 1195 ) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act 1991 (P.L. 101-513; 104 Stat. 1979) Continuing Appropriations, 1992 (P.L. 102-145; 105 Stat. 968) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1993 (P.L. 102-391; 106 Stat. 1633) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1994 (P.L. 103-87; 107 Stat. 931) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-306; 108 Stat. 1608) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1996 (P.L. 104-107; 110 Stat. 704) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1997 (title I, sec. 101(c)) in Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997) (P.L. 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009 at 3009-121) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1998 (P.L. 105-118; 111 Stat. 2386) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1999 (in Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999) (P.L. 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681 at 2681-150) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2000 (H.R. 3422, enacted by reference in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000) (P.L. 106-113; 113 Stat. 1501) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-429) Kenneth M. Ludden Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002 (P.L. 107-115; 115 Stat. 2118) Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2003 (division E in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2003) (P.L. 108-7; 117 Stat. 11 at 159) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2004 (division D in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004) (P.L. 108-199; 118 Stat. 3 at 143) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005 (division D in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005) (P.L. 108-447; 118 Stat. 2809 at 2968) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-102; 119 Stat. 2172) 2007: none (2006 continues) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (division J in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008) (P.L. 110-161; 121 Stat. 1844 at 2277) Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2009 (division J in Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009) (P.L. 111-8; 123 Stat. 524 at 831) Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (division F in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010) (P.L. 111-117; 123 Stat. 3034 at 3312) | This report identifies the legislative origins of General Provisions that pertain to foreign aid in the current Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010; P.L. 111-117; 123 Stat. 3034 at 3312), as continued for Fiscal Year 2011 by the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10; 125 Stat. 38; of which sec. 1101(a)(6) continues appropriations enacted in P.L. 111-117, and division B, title XI, which provides further instruction for FY2011 foreign operations expenditures). Foreign assistance law requires Congress to authorize funding for programs before appropriated funds are spent. Through 1985, Congress regularly enacted new authorization legislation or amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the foundation of U.S. foreign aid policy, to update authorization time frames, and to incorporate newer programs and authorities. After 1986, however, Congress turned more frequently to enacting freestanding authorities that did not amend the 1961 Act, or included language in annual appropriations measures to waive the requirement to keep authorizations current. Over time, as enactment of foreign aid reauthorizations waned, the General Provisions of foreign operations appropriations measures increasingly became an important legislative place for Congress to assert its views on the role and use of U.S. foreign aid policy, put limits or conditions on assistance, or even authorize new programs. |
A deceased former Buffalo Diocese priest is accused of pointing a gun at the head of a teenage boy he was molesting in the mid-1980s.
The sexual abuses are alleged to have happened after Buffalo Diocese officials were told the Rev. Michael R. Freeman had molested other boys and young men, but kept him in ministry.
Freeman was serving as associate pastor at St. Mary parish in Lancaster in the mid-1980s when he allegedly pointed a gun at the boy to persuade him to have sexual contact.
That startling new allegation was made by the now-49-year-old man in a compensation claim submitted to a Buffalo Diocese program offering monetary settlements to victims of childhood sexual abuse.
The man also said in his claim that Freeman provided absolution of the boy’s sins immediately following the acts of abuse, according to Steve Boyd, an Amherst attorney who represents the man. Catholics believe that priests alone, through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, have the power to free those who confess their sins from the spiritual consequences of those transgressions.
“This was the pattern that began, that Freeman would have this child perform oral sex on him and then absolve him of the sin afterwards,” said Boyd.
The priest began having sexual contact with the boy when the boy was about 14, according to Boyd.
Boyd submitted the claim for the man, who declined to be interviewed by The News but authorized Boyd to speak on his behalf. The man lives outside of Western New York, said Boyd. He is married and has children.
The man also said that Freeman, a former Buffalo police and military chaplain, regularly carried a silver-plated .38-caliber revolver, according to Boyd.
“And if the child would not participate willingly in Freeman’s sexual abuse, Freeman would jokingly threaten him with the revolver,” said Boyd. “He always carried it concealed. And several times, Freeman put the gun to the boy’s head.”
In addition, the man accused Freeman of paying a male prostitute in Toronto to have sex with them both, said Boyd.
“Freeman would take the child to Toronto with him and on one occasion Freeman paid a prostitute whose name was Scott to have sex with Freeman and the boy,” he said.
The abuse began in 1984 or 1985 and continued through the victim’s high school years, said Boyd.
Report: Diocese knew of history
Buffalo Diocese officials knew in 1981 that Freeman had a history of abuse, according to a Pennsylvania grand jury report released in August.
Edward D. Head was the bishop of Buffalo at the time. One of his top administrators was Monsignor Donald W. Trautman, who served as diocesan chancellor and vicar general and was later named auxiliary bishop in Buffalo. Trautman became bishop of the Erie Diocese in 1990.
The Buffalo Diocese did not inform the public about Freeman until March 2018, when Bishop Richard J. Malone released a list of 42 priests who had been credibly accused of sexual misconduct with minors.
The Pennsylvania grand jury, in its investigation of clergy sex abuse in six Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania, included Freeman in its report because it found that the Buffalo priest had ministered in various assignments in Pennsylvania.
The report said Freeman admitted to committing sexual misconduct with minors at St. Margaret and St. Lawrence parishes in Buffalo, where he served in the early 1970s, and at other clergy assignments. He also taught at Bishop Turner High School.
“The Grand Jury found no documentation in Freeman’s file that indicated that the Dioceses of Buffalo or Erie ever notified law enforcement officials, despite the fact that Freeman admitted to sexually violating children in at least five of his six ministry assignments,” the grand jury report said.
The News sought additional information about the allegations against Freeman from the Buffalo Diocese. Diocese spokeswoman Kathy Spangler said that officials could not provide answers at the moment because Freeman's personnel file - along with the files of other priests accused of abuse - has been handed over to the state Attorney General's office in response to a subpoena.
"At some point, when it is returned to us, time frame unknown, we will be able to respond to your questions," said Spangler.
An early accuser
One of Freeman's accusers, Paul Barr of Niagara Falls, said he first notified the diocese about Freeman in the early 1980s.
Barr said in an interview with The News that Freeman molested him in 1980 in the rectory of Sacred Heart Church in Niagara Falls, and he was outraged to learn the priest later victimized someone else.
“They knew, and they just turned a blind eye. What kills me is he abused people after I reported it. I think that bothers me more than anything,” said Barr, an attorney in Niagara Falls.
Barr also filed a claim this year for compensation from the diocese.
Barr said his abuse happened after the priest invited him to the rectory to talk about staying involved in the parish’s youth ministry program. The invitation seemed innocuous enough: Barr, who was 16 at the time, took his Catholic faith seriously and was flattered by the priest’s interest in him.
“The first thing he did was hand me a beer,” said Barr. “I didn’t even like beer, but I said to myself, �?This is cool, I’m drinking beer with a priest.’ "
But at the meeting, Barr said, the priest told him he needed to be checked for a sports injury that could be serious if not detected early. “He said, �?You want me to check you out, make sure you’re all right?’ ” recalled Barr, who was a high school wrestler. “He seemed to be stressing it was something that athletes got. So he was flattering me, saying, �?You must be an athlete.’ ”
Barr said he trusted the priest. But then Freeman fondled him, he said. “It wasn’t an examination touch,” said Barr.
Barr said he reported the molestation to the Buffalo Diocese a couple years later, at the urging of a youth minister who drove him to the chancery offices. Barr didn’t recall the name of the woman to whom he gave the report.
“I don’t know if it was a nun or a social worker. I told her the story, just as I’m telling you,” he said. “She more or less thanked me for coming in. And that was it. There was no follow up or anything.”
Barr said he’s gone to counseling for years to work through the emotional impact of the abuse.
Grand jury report
A summary of Freeman’s sexual misconduct was included in the Pennsylvania grand jury report, but it’s not clear if the grand jury obtained information about Freeman from the Buffalo Diocese or from a diocese in Pennsylvania.
The report stated that Freeman was assigned to St. Christopher in Tonawanda, Pa., in 1982 and to St. Mary in Lancaster, Pa., in 1984. However, there is no Tonawanda in Pennsylvania, and Freeman is listed in Buffalo Diocese directories as assigned to St. Christopher in Tonawanda, N.Y., in 1982 and to St. Mary in Lancaster, N.Y., in 1984.
A spokesman for the Pennsylvania State Attorney General's Office declined to comment on the discrepancies.
Trautman, who retired in 2012 and is now bishop emeritus of Erie, said he doesn’t remember Freeman working in any parishes in the Erie Diocese.
“I think it’s a mistake. He was never a priest of the Erie Diocese,” said Trautman. “I think his crime was he brought a young boy from Jamestown into the Erie Diocese and molested him.”
Trautman on Freeman allegations
Trautman was a high-ranking administrator in the Buffalo Diocese for more than 15 years prior to his appointment in 1990 as bishop of Erie. In his administrative roles in the Buffalo Diocese – he served as Head’s second-in-command for much of the 1970s and 1980s – he likely would have dealt with abuse allegations against Freeman and other priests.
But Trautman, 82, said in a telephone interview that he didn’t recall the accusations against Freeman or how the priest’s case was handled in Buffalo.
“The general practice was if the priest has proven sins against him, he’s taken out of ministry,” he said.
Trautman was heavily criticized in the grand jury report for his handling of sex abuse complaints in the Erie Diocese.
But Trautman said he removed many priests from ministry and years ago handed over diocesan files on abusive priests to the Erie County (Pa.) District Attorney’s Office. He served as Erie bishop until his retirement in 2012.
“Not everything in that grand jury report is accurate,” he said. “I think there are many instances where the report is not factual.”
The grand jury report stated that Freeman’s faculties as a priest were revoked in 1989 and that the diocese continued to provide financial aid to Freeman until July 31, 1999, when he told diocese officials that he had a new job that would provide a salary and health insurance.
Freeman went on to work for the Veterans Health Administration. He was listed in 2009 as a social worker with the Canandaigua VA Medical Center in Ontario County, according to federalpay.org, a website that tracks federal employees.
He died in 2010, at age 63, in Highland Hospital in Rochester after a brief illness, according to an obituary in the Niagara Gazette. ||||| HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Seven Roman Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania said Thursday that they have taken steps to set up victim compensation funds, nearly three months after a chilling grand jury report documented decades of child sexual abuse by priests in the state.
The Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Scranton and Allentown dioceses issued public announcements, and a lawyer for the Greensburg Diocese said it is also involved. The Erie and Pittsburgh dioceses said they were setting up funds but were not ready to disclose details. Altoona-Johnstown said it set up a victim fund in 1999.
The announcements did not mention a total dollar amount for the funds or their maximum potential individual payouts.
Five of the dioceses have hired veteran compensation fund coordinator Ken Feinberg to design and operate their programs. The Philadelphia fund will begin taking applications next week, setting a filing deadline for claims at the end of next September, said Camille Biros, Feinberg's co-administrator. Harrisburg, Erie, Greensburg and Scranton are expected to begin their programs in January, she said.
In statements, the dioceses described sources for the money, including borrowing, property sales, investments and insurers.
"For the most part, they're telling us, 'We want to get this done, so whatever it takes to get these resolved,'" Biros said.
Payouts and total fund amounts will not be disclosed by the dioceses, and church officials will have no say in decisions about eligibility or payout amounts, she said.
A legislative effort to change state law to allow a two-year window for people to sue in abuse cases that are otherwise too old to pursue passed the state House, but it was blocked by Republican state senators last month. Opponents, including Catholic bishops and the insurance industry, expressed concerns about the cost and argued that a retroactive change would violate the state constitution.
Rep. Mark Rozzi, a Berks County Democrat and leading advocate for the lawsuit window, said negotiations have continued and he sees a possibility of a deal by year's end.
"And if not, we're going to be back at it next year," Rozzi said.
The landmark grand jury report released in August estimated hundreds of priests in Pennsylvania molested more than 1,000 children since the 1940s.
State Attorney General Josh Shapiro, whose office oversaw the investigation, said lawmakers should enact the window along with other changes to state law that the jury recommended — eliminating time limits on criminal prosecutions for sexual abuse of children, clarify penalties for failing to report child abuse and banning confidentiality agreements that prevent victims from speaking with law enforcement.
Shapiro said the grand jury "recommended that victims deserve their day in court — not that the church should be the arbiter of its own punishment. These undefined compensation funds do not give a pass to lawmakers — the Legislature should return to Harrisburg, do their jobs and pass the grand jury's four reforms."
The announcements come as the chief federal prosecutor in Philadelphia has begun investigating whether Pennsylvania diocese officials broke any federal child exploitation laws.
Ben Andreozzi, a lawyer who represents dozens of people in each of Pennsylvania's eight dioceses who claim to have been abused by priests, said such funds can be helpful. But, he said, they can also avoid full disclosure of what occurred, do not help victims whose abuse had nothing to do with the Catholic Church and typically deliver less money to a victim than a lawsuit.
"The biggest drawback in a fund like this is that it does not force the institution to come clean with all the information that it has regarding the abuse," Andreozzi said. "And oftentimes the victims don't get fair market value for their claims."
Feinberg and Biros ran victims' compensation funds set up by five New York dioceses in recent years. They put no cap on payouts, but $500,000 is the most paid out to one individual, Biros said. Factors to determine the size of the payouts included the severity of the abuse, the age of the victim and the long-term effect on the victim's life.
"I think that the programs in New York have been very well received, and we're hoping the same will be true for the Pennsylvania dioceses," Biros said.
The Philadelphia Archdiocese said its program would be overseen by a three-person committee, including former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell of Maine, former interim Philadelphia District Attorney Kelley Hodge and Lawrence Stengel, a retired federal judge. It plans to sell properties but will not dip into money for charities, seminaries, donor-designated gifts or donations to parishes, ministries or schools.
Allentown, which has not hired Feinberg, said an independent board will oversee an administrator's decision about compensation. It plans to announce a timetable and other details shortly. Erie said its fund parameters were being finalized.
Harrisburg said its program will be funded by its reserve, unrestricted accounts, investments and its insurers. Scranton said its fund will be paid with reserves and it will sell assets and borrow money. A lawyer for Greensburg said it planned to release details.
Pittsburgh said it will outline its program by the end of the year, and Bishop David Zubik recently scheduled "listening sessions" around the diocese to help determine how the program will operate. Biros said the Feinberg team has been in talks with the Pittsburgh diocese about possibly operating its program.
___
Associated Press reporter Marc Levy in Harrisburg contributed to this report. | A New York state priest allegedly sexually assaulted a teen in the 1980s while holding a gun to his head, according to a complaint filed with a fund set up by the Buffalo diocese to compensate sexual abuse victims. The Buffalo News reports that Rev. Michael R. Freeman was serving over the state line in Lancaster, Pa., when he used the firearm to force the boy to engage in non-consensual sexual contact. The victim, now 49, says that Freeman was a former military chaplain who routinely carried a .38-caliber revolver. "And if the child would not participate willingly in Freeman’s sexual abuse, Freeman would jokingly threaten him with the revolver," says the victim's lawyer. "He always carried it concealed. And several times, Freeman put the gun to the boy’s head." Further, says the victim's lawyer, "Freeman would have this child perform oral sex on him and then absolve him of the sin afterwards." The alleged abuse, which went on for a number of years in the mid-1980s, occurred after the diocese had received reports of Freeman abusing other children, notes the Democrat and Chronicle. "They knew, and they just turned a blind eye," says a man who claims Freeman molested him in 1980. "What kills me is he abused people after I reported it. I think that bothers me more than anything." Freeman died in 2010. (Similar victims funds have been set up in Pennsylvania, where Freeman was mentioned in a grand jury report in August.) |
Historically, Congress has mandated programs to help U.S. exporters compete with subsidies provided by other countries, to assist with financing for exports where credit is a constraint, or to promote U.S. agricultural exports. Some in Congress have criticized programs that assist with exports as corporate welfare; others suggest that private entities could and should themselves finance export activities. The 2008 farm bill extends funding authority for credit guarantees and export market development through FY2012. The enacted farm law repeals legislative authority for the major export subsidy program, but extends authority for a smaller program that subsidizes dairy product exports. Funded by using the borrowing authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), the farm bill agricultural export programs are administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). CCC export credit guarantees assure payments for commercial financing of the sale of U.S. agricultural exports. If a foreign buyer defaults on the debt financing incurred, the CCC assumes the debt. In the 2002 farm bill ( P.L. 107-171 ) Congress authorized $5.5 billion (in export value, not cost to the Treasury) for such guarantees, plus an additional $1 billion to be made available to countries that are emerging markets. Four CCC export credit guarantee programs were authorized in the 2002 farm bill. GSM-102 guaranteed short-term (up to 3 years) financing of U.S. farm products; GSM-103 guaranteed longer-term (3-10 years) financing. The Supplier Credit Guarantee Program (SCGP) guaranteed very short-term (up to 1 year) financing of exports. The Facilities Financing Guarantee Program (FFGP) guaranteed financing of goods and services exported from the United States to improve or establish agriculture-related facilities in emerging markets. In 2006, FAS suspended operation of the GSM-103 program. The suspension was in response to a WTO dispute panel decision in a case brought by Brazil against U.S. cotton policy. The panel ruled that GSM programs were prohibited export subsidies because they did not recover their operating costs. Also FAS suspended the SCGP in FY2006, largely because of a high rate of defaulted obligations and evidence of fraud. In its farm bill proposals, the Administration requested that Congress formally repeal legislative authorities for GSM-103 and the SCGP. The Administration also requested that Congress lift the statutory 1% cap on loan origination fees for GSM-102,which the WTO cited as a subsidy element in the operation of the export credit guarantee programs. The 2008 farm bill repeals authority for the SCGP, the GSM-103 intermediate credit guarantee, and the 1% cap on loan origination fees for the GSM-102 program. The new farm bill caps the credit subsidy for the program at $40 million annually. The amount of GSM-102 credit that CCC must make available each year is set at not less than $5.5 billion, but the $40 million credit subsidy cap, according to the manager's statement accompanying the bill, is expected to finance $4 billion annually in export credit guarantees. The 2008 farm bill extends authority for the FFGP to FY2012. It also provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may waive requirements that U.S. goods be used in the construction of a facility under this program, if such goods are not available or their use is not practicable. The new law also permits the Secretary to provide a guarantee for this program for the term of the depreciation schedule for the facility, not to exceed 20 years. The 2002 farm bill authorized four programs to promote U.S. agricultural products in overseas markets, including the Market Access Program (MAP), the Foreign Market Development Program (FMDP), the Emerging Markets Program (EMP), and the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program (TASC). Authorization of CCC funds for the market development programs expired with the 2002 farm bill in 2007. During the farm bill debate both the Administration and producers of fruits and vegetables advocated increased funding for export market development programs, targeted to specialty crops (fruits and vegetables). MAP assists primarily value-added products. Its purpose is to expand exports over the long term by undertaking activities such as consumer promotions, technical assistance, trade servicing, and market research. MAP projects are jointly funded by the federal government and industry groups. Trade organizations, nonprofit industry organizations, and private firms that are not represented by an industry group submit proposals for marketing activities to the USDA, which evaluates proposals and selects recipient organizations. The 2008 farm bill extends MAP through FY2012, makes organic produce eligible for the program, and keeps the funding level at the FY2007 level—$200 million—for each of the next five years (FY2008-FY2012). The 2002 farm bill reauthorized CCC funding for FMDP through FY2007 at an annual level of $34.5 million. FMDP, which resembles MAP in most major respects, mainly promotes generic or bulk commodity exports. The 2008 farm bill extends FMDP through FY2012 without change in the funding authorization. EMP provides funding for technical assistance activities intended to promote exports of U.S. agricultural commodities and products to emerging markets in all geographic regions, consistent with U.S. foreign policy. An emerging market is defined in the authorizing legislation (the 2002 farm bill) as any country that is taking steps toward a market-oriented economy through food, agricultural, or rural business sectors of the economy of the country. Additionally, an emerging market country must have the potential to provide a viable and significant market for U.S. agricultural commodities or products. The 2002 farm bill authorized funding at $10 million annually through FY2007. The 2008 farm bill reauthorizes the Emerging Markets Program through FY2012 without change. TASC aims to assist U.S. specialty crop exports by providing funds for projects that address sanitary, phytosanitary, and technical barriers that prohibit or threaten U.S. speciality crop exporters. The 2002 farm bill defined specialty crops as all cultivated plants, and the products thereof, produced in the United States, except wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice, peanuts, sugar, and tobacco. The types of activities covered include seminars and workshops, study tours, field surveys, pest and disease research, and pre-clearance programs. The 2002 farm bill authorized $2 million annually of CCC funds each fiscal year through FY2007 for the TASC program. The 2008 farm bill extends TASC through FY2012 and increases funding to $4 million in FY2008; $7 million in FY2009; $8 million in FY2010; and $9 million in each of FY20011 and FY2012. The 2002 farm bill authorized direct export subsidies of agricultural products through the Export Enhancement Program (EEP) and the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP). Both programs subsidized agricultural exports when U.S. domestic prices were higher than world or international prices. EEP, which mainly subsidized exports of wheat and wheat flour (around 80% of EEP subsidies), has been little used as U.S. and world prices have moved closer together. The last year of significant EEP subsidies was 1995; there were no EEP subsidies during the five years of the 2002 farm bill. DEIP provided subsidies for dairy product exports; no DEIP subsidies have been provided since 2005. Agricultural export subsidies are a major issue in the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations, where preliminary agreement has been reached to eliminate them by 2013. The 2008 farm bill repeals legislative authority for EEP, but extends legislative authority for DEIP through December 31, 2012. (The DEIP authorization is in Title I, the Commodities title of the 2008 farm bill.) The 2008 farm bill requires the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to make a contribution on behalf of the United States to the Global Crop Diversity Trust of up to $60 million over five years. U.S. contributions to the trust may not exceed one fourth of the total of funds contributed to the trust from all sources. The Global Diversity Trust is the funding mechanism for the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, which is an international agreement for the conservation, exploration, collection, characterization, evaluation and documentation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. The trust, administered by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, (FAO), assists in funding the operation of gene banks held by the countries that are party to the treaty. The 2008 farm bill includes a provision that requires the Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Secretary of Labor, to develop standards that importers of agricultural products into the United States could choose to use to certify that those products were not produced with the use of abusive forms of child labor. The consultative group would develop recommendations on practices that would enable companies to monitor and verify whether the food products they import are made with the use of child or forced labor. | Agricultural exports, which are forecast by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reach $108.5 billion in 2009, are an important source of employment, income, and purchasing power in the U.S. economy. Programs that deal with U.S. agricultural exports are a major focus of Title III, the trade title, in the new omnibus farm bill, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, H.R. 6124). The enacted farm bill repeals the major U.S. export subsidy program, and reauthorizes and changes a number of programs that assist with financing U.S. agricultural exports or that help develop markets overseas. Changes include modifying export credit guarantee programs to conform with U.S. commitments in the World Trade Organization (WTO), making organic products eligible for export market development programs, and increasing the funds available to address sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to U.S. specialty crop exports. International food aid programs are the other major focus of the farm bill trade title. For a discussion of farm bill changes in food aid programs, see CRS Report RS22900, International Food Aid Provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill. |
Things got really real during Monday night's Dancing With The Stars.
Following a spectacular performance, Dancing with the Stars contestant/Olympic gold medalist/all-around badass Simone Biles was not here for critiques about her smiling—and let the world know about it in a no holds barred comment.
SEE ALSO: Bow down to badass Simone Biles
The judges, who begin their remarks below at the 3:15 mark, start by talking about her emotional improvement, compliment her authentic smile—all while critiquing how her dancing was too precise.
But before hearing the rest of the judges' comments, host Tom Bergeron had something to say. "I was waiting for you to smile at some of the compliments—you didn't," he said.
"Smiling doesn't win you gold medals," she fiercely responded, eliciting a fumbled "OK" from Bergeron, who just got served by an Olympic champion.
"I feel like everyone has their own opinion, clearly, and I feel it's just how you take it," Biles told Entertainment Tonight after the show. "I feel like I am trying, I am being honest, but if they don't see that, I don't know what more I can do," she said, explaining as she had tears in her eyes. "I almost ran to the bathroom at one point, but I pulled it together."
People watching at home jumped online to stand behind Biles' comment.
My new response when men tell me to smile-"Smiling doesn't win you gold medals." SO GOOD @Simone_Biles! �?🙌 — Alyshia Bagley (@thebaglelady) May 9, 2017
Can't stop laughing. Best answer ever: "I smile when I win gold medals." Totally understand how @Simone_Biles meant that. #DWTS — Adina Porter (@AdinaPorter) May 9, 2017
The host asked @Simone_Biles about her absent smile and she said "Smiling doesn't win you gold medals" and I INSTANTLY GOT UP AND CHEERED pic.twitter.com/iB0cPDqHeP — Inkwell J (@iAmInkwellJ) May 9, 2017
They criticized @Simone_Biles for smiling too much then ask her why she doesn't smile? Mixed signals much? #DancingWiththeStars — Lauren Paletz (@Laurenipal10) May 9, 2017
And every woman around the world clapped simultaneously for @Simone_Biles shutting down the "Smile!" — Lauren Rao (@LoreRayo) May 9, 2017
Even Bergeron knew he should not have gone there. "The question I should have asked (and have of many contestants) was 'What's your reaction to the judges comments?'" he tweeted.
Next time, please do. �? ||||| A Brooklyn artist takes on street harassment in a clever portrait series that's spreading across America.
You hear it all the time. Hey baby, smile for me a little bit. Why are you so upset? Come on I know how to make you feel better. Some women decide to respond to the constant teasing, cat-calling and harassment with a cold shoulder. Brooklyn based artist Tatyana Fazlalizadeh took her resistance to the streets. Her project “Stop Telling Women to Smile” places portraits of women, defiant and impactful, in the very spaces where strangers have hounded her. The real power of Fazlalizadeh’s work, however, is not in reliving those moments of fear, but in allowing women to fight back.
The Daily Beast: “Stop Telling Women to Smile” developed from your experiences with street harassment, and has grown into a larger commentary on how women are treated and expected to act in the public spaces they occupy. You’ve lived in many settings—you grew up in Oklahoma, lived most of your life in Philly, and just recently moved to Bed-Stuy, where you began this art project. Why did you conceptualize this as a public art piece and how were you informed by the various public spaces you have lived in?
Tatyana Fazlalizadeh: I am primarily an oil painter, but for the past couple of years I worked on a large mural project that allowed me to interact more with the public space. Street harassment is something I have wanted to work on for a while, and I toyed around with sketches and ideas for oil paintings, but it didn’t come out the way I wanted to until I took it outside. But that’s just the site of it; the actual work involved talking to women about their experiences with street harassment and then drawing their portraits. I put them up in Bed-Stuy because that is where I live and spend most of my time. It is an excuse for me to ride my bike around Brooklyn at night to put these up. But I have ventured this project out to Chicago, Harlem, Philadelphia and D.C. I can remember even when driving my car in Oklahoma, being approached and harassed by men. I wasn’t aware it was street harassment; I didn’t even start using the term ‘street harassment’ until a year ago. Before it was just men trying to holler at me.
How did you come to embrace the term?
I discovered a whole street harassment movement happening on line—Hollaback!, StopStreetHarrasment.org. All these different forums for anti-street-harassment movements online informed me about women’s experiences and brought that term into my vocabulary.
(CLICK BELOW TO SEE MORE IMAGES FROM THE PROJECT)
CLICK TO SEE MORE IMAGES FROM THE "STOP TELLING WOMEN TO SMILE" PROJECT (Tatyana Fazlalizadeh)
Your work starts from the issue of street harassment, yet the tone of the phrases you choose point to the fact that women don’t need to be sensible to men’s needs. They do not need to appease or seem agreeable to anyone, both on the street and in personal relationships.
That's especially true for the “smile” comment. That piece in particular has received a lot of backlash. A lot of people don’t understand why women would have a scowl or a neutral facial expression. Women are looked at as needing to have this kind of emotional response, to always be happy, always be nice, and caring, and pretty, and lovely. You have to be dainty and poised and have a pleasant demeanor. It is put on us as our responsibility. Many people feel entitled to women’s emotions or expressions, particularly in the public space. Men often tell a woman to smile or initiate a conversation with a woman without her wanting to respond. She doesn’t owe you anything; she can move around the world however she wants to without having to feel like she has some responsibility to give something to someone else, to a stranger. While that definitely happens on the street, these posters and their sayings can shift into a lot of other contexts and situations.
How do you find the women you interview and feature?
Most of the women that I have interviewed so far have been women that I know, my friends and my colleagues. For many of them, I know they have had these experiences, so I want to hear more about what they have gone through. I am also looking at who they are, what they look like. I try to choose a variety of women to portray in these portraits. Not all of them live in my community. The last woman I interviewed was my friend who lives near Sunset Park in Brooklyn. She is half Guatemalan and half Mexican and lives in a Dominican neighborhood. Her situation is very different from where I live and my background, what I look like, what my face looks like, what I experience. I try to pick many experiences and perspectives, but they are all women that I personally know and have asked to participate.
Let’s talk more about how race affects women’s experiences in public spaces.
How race connects with street harassment is something I think about a lot. I started this project using images of women of color for the posters because most of my work portrays people of color. A lot of my work has been around identity and telling the stories and experiences of people that look like me. So, I wanted to insert these images of women of color to allow our experiences and voices to be heard in a feminist conversation. But now that this project has gotten some attention and I'm getting stories and emails from women all across the world, I'm realizing how complex race is when it comes to street harassment.
I think when we talk about street harassment we're talking about a type of power and privilege that's being exerted over women in public spaces. And whenever we talk about any type of oppression or privilege, there's always the other types of oppression or privilege that come in to play. That includes race, sexuality, class, gender, etc. How do queer women experience street harassment, how do trans women experience it? As the project is growing, this is all stuff that I'm trying to be more aware of and articulate in the work.
It plays a huge part in what women experience outside. Another Mexican friend told me that sometimes a group of guys who clearly don’t speak Spanish will come up to her and try to speak some Spanish words to her in order to impress her or whatever. That is a way that her race and ethnicity directs her own experience of street harassment. What you look like and who you are will be reflected in the way that some men approach you. Women are generally made out to be sexual beings and therefore deserving a sexual approach whenever we walk by; we are a sexual thing out there for men’s consumption. While that affects most women across the board, I also known that as a black woman, we are hypersexualized in the media and society in general. For me, as a black woman, I am made to be this kind of really exotic sexual thing—or even creature. That perception affects the ways that I interact in public spaces with men of all colors. That is an important part of the project—trying to find out what other women experience. I want to know how Indian women treated, how white women are treated, how their race is perceived in society and how that affects others’ treatments when they are outside.
This project has, for good reasons, received a lot of attention. What has surprising you most about the responses you have received?
The most surprising thing has been just how extreme the responses are. People either feel they love and support this or they hate it and can’t understand how I could do this. I get a lot of emails from women telling me their stories, saying thank you for this project and telling me what they have experienced. I get a lot of long emails, and I really appreciate women opening up to me. This project elicits such strong emotions from people. As a woman I can relate because I am also passionate about this and understand how upsetting it can be. At the same time I am getting responses from guys telling me that I am being stuck up, that its not that big of a deal, to get over it, to take it as a compliment, and all these other condescending things. When you have women tell their experiences, to say “This is what I go through. I don’t like it. I don’t want to go through this,” few people actually engage in a conversation like we are right now. Instead there is a bunch of defensiveness and accusations. Whenever women speak up for themselves there are always people that try to shut them down. It’s very frustrating for someone to tell you that what you experience is not valid. Especially when people say it’s “just a compliment.” I am an adult and I have been interacting with human beings all of my life. I know what a compliment is and I know what a compliment isn’t.
So, what’s next?
I am actually starting to take this project to the next level. A lot of women have asked to purchase a piece and put them up in their own city. A couple weeks ago I opened it up for women to do this. They pay me for the shipping and handling and I send them a piece and some information on wheat pasting. So I am now looking at the project as more participatory. It’s not just mine any more, not just me in Bed-Stuy. It’s women around the world who are all doing this in their neighborhoods. I just shipped out the first posters a few days ago so we will see how it goes. I’d like women to document these and share pictures and reactions. I also want to create these portraits in different cities and interview women there and create new works specific to their cities.
It would be great to do it in different languages as well.
Absolutely—different languages, different communities. I would like to travel internationally with this. I think it would be more impactful and powerful if I have women enacting this in their own communities. I am looking for funding now, maybe staring a Kickstarter or partnering with Hollaback!. I think it has a lot potential and I think that traveling with it is the next step. ||||| This is a set of web collections curated by Mark Graham using the Archive-IT service of the Internet Archive. They include web captures of the ISKME.org website as well as captures from sites hosted by IGC.org.These web captures are available to the general public.For more information about this collection please feel free to contact Mark via Send Mail |||||
Simone Biles set the internet on fire during Monday's Dancing With the Stars when she clapped back at the judges, who criticized both of her routines for not having enough emotion.
After her second dance of the night, Biles did not look pleased to hear some inexplicably harsh feedback about her routine, especially from Carrie Ann Inaba, who shared her notes along with some kind words and supportive comments.
When asked by host Tom Bergeron why the positive comments didn't elicit a smile from the 20-year-old Olympian, Biles replied "Smiling doesn’t win you gold medals."
WATCH: Simone Biles Confides in ‘DWTS’ Partner Sasha Farber About Her New Dating Life
The biting comeback received an outpouring of support from her fans, who applauded Biles for standing up for herself against the judges' surprisingly lackluster feedback.
Biles has been one of Dancing With the Stars' fan favorites since the season began, but the four-time Olympic gold medalist has had a tough time connecting with the judges and has yet to earn a perfect score. On Monday, she earned 36 out of 40 for both of her routines.
ET's Nischelle Turner caught up with Biles and her pro partner, Sasha Farber, after the show, where they opened up about the disappointing response and how they are going to move forward.
"I feel like everyone has their own opinion, clearly, and I feel it's just how you take it," Biles said, adding that, in spite of the judges saying that they can't get a feel for who she really is during her performances, she's doing her best to convey real emotion.
"I feel like I am trying, I am being honest, but if they don't see that, I don't know what more I can do," Biles explained.
NEWS: Simone Biles Gets Tattoo of Olympic Rings With Jake Miller
"I just know how hard this girl works," Farber shared. "Each week she comes in and she delivers something different. There's a lot of expectation on her shoulders, and we're just gonna go back into the studio and keep digging."
One thing Biles has struggled with is knowing and understanding what the judges want from her, in terms of her emotions in her performances. While some of the dances call for her to show her sexy side, others require nuanced emotion, and from her point of view, there's never a clear sign as to what will impress them from week to week.
"You don't know which wild card of sexy or of happy they want to bring, and you almost have to read their minds and find it," she explained.
While Biles dealt with the criticism like a pro, the young star admitted that she nearly started crying.
"I had tears in my eyes," she recalled. "I almost ran to the bathroom at one point, but I pulled it together."
WATCH: 'DWTS': Normani Kordei Gets Candid About Being the Target of Racist Bullying, Earns Second Perfect Score
ET also caught up with the night's highest scoring star and this season's frontrunner, Normani Kordei, along with her partner, longtime DWTS pro Val Chmerkovskiy, who opened up about how much of an "honor" it is to have Biles on the show.
"Thank you for embracing our show, thank you for doing it, thank you for putting yourself out there," Chmerkovskiy said, addressing Biles. "Hopefully this [incident] doesn't leave a bitter taste in her mouth. I know that she's loved, she's welcome, everybody loves having her here."
The 31-year-old dancer said he fully supports the Olympic champ, and backed her up when it came to her response.
"She kept it real, you know, and sometimes the truth hurts," he said. "Smiles don't get you gold medals and I agree with her as an athlete and I side with her. It doesn't always sound pretty, you know, the gym, the locker room, none of these places are all fun and games. There's hard work and sweat and tears and, most of the time, everything but smiling."
WATCH: 'Dancing With the Stars' Biggest Ballroom Bombshells: Engagements, Baby Announcements, Feuds and More!
As the competition said goodbye to Bonner Bolton on Monday and moved forward to the semifinals, Biles and Kordei are the only remaining female competitors, and the Fifth Harmony singer says she's developed a close friendship with her castmate.
"We're literally the best of friends," Kordei shared. "I love her to death… the cool thing about Dancing With The Stars is that it creates amazing relationships and friendships that will last a lifetime."
WATCH: Simone Biles, Mr. T, Nancy Kerrigan and More Bring the Tears During 'Most Memorable Year' Performances
Related Gallery ||||| Simone Biles will be in the Dancing with the Stars Final Four, but she’s being challenged to do more than just the steps required to impress the judges … and that’s brought out her fiery side.
First, watch her super-intense Paso Trio:
Then, listen to the exchange with judge Carrie Ann Inaba, who praises Biles, but tells her to be careful not to dance “like a metronome” precisely on the beat. Her response to host Tom Bergeron wondering she didn’t smile is straight fire.
“Smiling doesn’t win you gold medals.”
Bergeron appreciated the candor.
Loved @Simone_Biles crisp response to my clumsy question. Curious how she felt about judges comments, I unwittingly added to the smile pile. — Tom Bergeron (@Tom_Bergeron) May 9, 2017
UPDATE: Biles responded to Bergeron’s tweet on Wednesday.
Here’s how Twitter reacted:
Can't stop laughing. Best answer ever: "I smile when I win gold medals." Totally understand how @Simone_Biles meant that. #DWTS — Adina Porter (@AdinaPorter) May 9, 2017
"Smiling doesn't win you Gold medals." Oh Simone Biles you savage. #DWTS — Eric Mueller (@EricJ_Mueller) May 9, 2017
Biles spoke with E! afterwards and explained how intense and “scary” it is to stand in front of the judges to hear what they have to say. Ultimately, she concluded that maybe and her partner Sasha Farber need to work on “fluidity.”
But she may have stumbled on the perfect phrase for a gymnastics t-shirt that I would totally buy, ||||| Product Details
Designed by: Claire Quigley
Our designs are printed direct-to-garment and on-demand as your orders are received.
Please note that crewnecks and v-necks have different fits, view our sizing chart here for more information: www.feministapparel.com/pages/sizes ||||| Simone Biles set the internet on fire during Monday's Dancing With the Stars when she clapped back at the judges, who criticized both of her routines for not having enough emotion.
After her second dance of the night, Biles did not look pleased to hear some inexplicably harsh feedback about her routine, especially from Carrie Ann Inaba, who shared her notes along with some kind words and supportive comments.
When asked by host Tom Bergeron why the positive comments didn't elicit a smile from the 20-year-old Olympian, Biles replied "Smiling doesn't win you gold medals."
WATCH: Simone Biles Confides in 'DWTS' Partner Sasha Farber About Her New Dating Life
The biting comeback received an outpouring of support from her fans, who applauded Biles for standing up for herself against the judges' surprisingly lackluster feedback.
21 PHOTOS Simone Biles on 'Dancing With the Stars' See Gallery Simone Biles on 'Dancing With the Stars' LOS ANGELES, CA - MAY 08: Olympian Simone Biles attends 'Dancing with the Stars' Season 24 at CBS Televison City on May 8, 2017 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by David Livingston/Getty Images) LOS ANGELES, CA - MAY 08: Olympian Simone Biles (R) and dancer Sasha Farber attend 'Dancing with the Stars' Season 24 at CBS Televison City on May 8, 2017 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by David Livingston/Getty Images) DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2407' - The seven remaining couples are presented with an all-new challenge, as they dance to celebrate 'A Night at the Movies.' One couple will receive immunity; the remaining couples will compete in a Dance-Off; and a double elimination will take place at the end of the night, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, MAY 1 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless/ABC via Getty Images) SASHA FARBER, SIMONE BILES DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2407' - The seven remaining couples are presented with an all-new challenge, as they dance to celebrate 'A Night at the Movies.' One couple will receive immunity; the remaining couples will compete in a Dance-Off; and a double elimination will take place at the end of the night, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, MAY 1 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless/ABC via Getty Images) SIMONE BILES, SASHA FARBER DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2407' - The seven remaining couples are presented with an all-new challenge, as they dance to celebrate 'A Night at the Movies.' One couple will receive immunity; the remaining couples will compete in a Dance-Off; and a double elimination will take place at the end of the night, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, MAY 1 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless/ABC via Getty Images) SIMONE BILES, SASHA FARBER DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2407' - The seven remaining couples are presented with an all-new challenge, as they dance to celebrate 'A Night at the Movies.' One couple will receive immunity; the remaining couples will compete in a Dance-Off; and a double elimination will take place at the end of the night, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, MAY 1 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless/ABC via Getty Images) SASHA FARBER, SIMONE BILES DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2407' - The seven remaining couples are presented with an all-new challenge, as they dance to celebrate 'A Night at the Movies.' One couple will receive immunity; the remaining couples will compete in a Dance-Off; and a double elimination will take place at the end of the night, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, MAY 1 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless/ABC via Getty Images) SIMONE BILES, SASHA FARBER DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2407' - The seven remaining couples are presented with an all-new challenge, as they dance to celebrate 'A Night at the Movies.' One couple will receive immunity; the remaining couples will compete in a Dance-Off; and a double elimination will take place at the end of the night, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, MAY 1 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless/ABC via Getty Images) SIMONE BILES, SASHA FARBER DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2407' - The seven remaining couples are presented with an all-new challenge, as they dance to celebrate 'A Night at the Movies.' One couple will receive immunity; the remaining couples will compete in a Dance-Off; and a double elimination will take place at the end of the night, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, MAY 1 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless/ABC via Getty Images) SHARNA BURGESS, BONNER BOLTON, LINDSAY ARNOLD, DAVID ROSS, NANCY KERRIGAN, ARTEM CHIGVINTSEV, PETA MURGATROYD, NICK VIALL, EMMA SLATER, RASHAD JENNINGS, SIMONE BILES, SASHA FARBER LOS ANGELES, CA - MAY 01: Olympian Simone Biles attends 'Dancing with the Stars' Season 24 at CBS Televison City on May 1, 2017 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by David Livingston/Getty Images) DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2407' - The seven remaining couples are presented with an all-new challenge, as they dance to celebrate 'A Night at the Movies.' One couple will receive immunity; the remaining couples will compete in a Dance-Off; and a double elimination will take place at the end of the night, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, MAY 1 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless/ABC via Getty Images) TOM BERGERON, SIMONE BILES, SASHA FARBER DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2406' - The eight remaining celebrities will dance to songs from some of the most popular boy bands and girl groups throughout history, and the men and women will also compete against each other in team dances, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, APRIL 24 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless / ABC Via Getty Images) SASHA FARBER, SIMONE BILES LOS ANGELES, CA - MAY 01: Olympian Simone Biles (L) and dancer Sasha Farber attend 'Dancing with the Stars' Season 24 at CBS Televison City on May 1, 2017 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by David Livingston/Getty Images) DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2406' - The eight remaining celebrities will dance to songs from some of the most popular boy bands and girl groups throughout history, and the men and women will also compete against each other in team dances, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, APRIL 24 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless / ABC Via Getty Images) SIMONE BILES, SASHA FARBER DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2406' - The eight remaining celebrities will dance to songs from some of the most popular boy bands and girl groups throughout history, and the men and women will also compete against each other in team dances, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, APRIL 24 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless / ABC Via Getty Images) SIMONE BILES LOS ANGELES, CA - APRIL 24: Olympian Simone Biles (R) and dancer Sasha Farber attend 'Dancing with the Stars' Season 24 at CBS Televison City on April 24, 2017 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by David Livingston/Getty Images) DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2406' - The eight remaining celebrities will dance to songs from some of the most popular boy bands and girl groups throughout history, and the men and women will also compete against each other in team dances, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, APRIL 24 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless / ABC Via Getty Images) HEATHER MORRIS, NORMANI KORDEI, SIMONE BILES, NANCY KERRIGAN LOS ANGELES, CA - APRIL 17: Olympian Simone Biles (R) and dancer Sasha Farber attend 'Dancing with the Stars' Season 24 at CBS Televison City on April 17, 2017 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by David Livingston/Getty Images) DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2404' - The 10 remaining celebrities will take a stroll down memory lane and celebrate with a dance to a time in their lives that left a lasting impression, as they commemorate their most memorable year, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, APRIL 10 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless/ABC via Getty Images) SIMONE BILES, SASHA FARBER DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2404' - The 10 remaining celebrities will take a stroll down memory lane and celebrate with a dance to a time in their lives that left a lasting impression, as they commemorate their most memorable year, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, APRIL 10 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless/ABC via Getty Images) SIMONE BILES, SASHA FARBER DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2404' - The 10 remaining celebrities will take a stroll down memory lane and celebrate with a dance to a time in their lives that left a lasting impression, as they commemorate their most memorable year, on 'Dancing with the Stars,' live, MONDAY, APRIL 10 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless/ABC via Getty Images) SIMONE BILES, SASHA FARBER Up Next See Gallery Discover More Like This HIDE CAPTION SHOW CAPTION of SEE ALL BACK TO SLIDE
Biles has been one of Dancing With the Stars' fan favorites since the season began, but the four-time Olympic gold medalist has had a tough time connecting with the judges and has yet to earn a perfect score. On Monday, she earned 36 out of 40 for both of her routines.
ET's Nischelle Turner caught up with Biles and her pro partner, Sasha Farber, after the show, where they opened up about the disappointing response and how they are going to move forward.
"I feel like everyone has their own opinion, clearly, and I feel it's just how you take it," Biles said, adding that, in spite of the judges saying that they can't get a feel for who she really is during her performances, she's doing her best to convey real emotion.
"I feel like I am trying, I am being honest, but if they don't see that, I don't know what more I can do," Biles explained.
NEWS: Simone Biles Gets Tattoo of Olympic Rings With Jake Miller
"I just know how hard this girl works," Farber shared. "Each week she comes in and she delivers something different. There's a lot of expectation on her shoulders, and we're just gonna go back into the studio and keep digging."
One thing Biles has struggled with is knowing and understanding what the judges want from her, in terms of her emotions in her performances. While some of the dances call for her to show her sexy side, others require nuanced emotion, and from her point of view, there's never a clear sign as to what will impress them from week to week.
"You don't know which wild card of sexy or of happy they want to bring, and you almost have to read their minds and find it," she explained.
While Biles dealt with the criticism like a pro, the young star admitted that she nearly started crying.
"I had tears in my eyes," she recalled. "I almost ran to the bathroom at one point, but I pulled it together."
WATCH: 'DWTS': Normani Kordei Gets Candid About Being the Target of Racist Bullying, Earns Second Perfect Score
18 PHOTOS 'Dancing With the Stars' season 24 premiere See Gallery 'Dancing With the Stars' season 24 premiere DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) TOM BERGERON, NORMANI KORDEI, VALENTIN CHMERKOVSKIY DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) BONNER BOLTON DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) SHARNA BURGESS DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) NANCY KERRIGAN DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) GLEB SAVCHENKO DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) ERIKA JAYNE, GLEB SAVCHENKO DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) SHARNA BURGESS, BONNER BOLTON DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) ERIKA JAYNE DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) MR. T, KYM JOHNSON DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless / ABC Via Getty Images) CARRIE ANN INABA, LEN GOODMAN, JULIANNE HOUGH, BRUNO TONIOLI DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless / ABC Via Getty Images) SIMONE BILES, SASHA FARBER, SHARNA BURGESS, BONNER BOLTON, CHARO, KEO MOTSEPE, LINDSAY ARNOLD, DAVID ROSS, TOM BERGERON, ERIN ANDREWS, WITNEY CARSON, CHRIS KATTAN, ERIKA JAYNE, GLEB SAVCHENKO, HEATHER MORRIS, MAKSIM CHMERKOVSKIY, KYM JOHNSON, MR. T, NANCY KERRIGAN, ARTEM CHIGVINTSEV, PETA MURGATROYD, NICK VIALL, NORMANI KORDEI, VALENTIN CHMERKOVSKIY, RASHAD JENNINGS, EMMA SLATER DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) VALENTIN CHMERKOVSKIY, NORMANI KORDEI DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless / ABC Via Getty Images) EMMA SLATER, RASHAD JENNINGS, SIMONE BILES, SASHA FARBER DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) RASHAD JENNINGS, EMMA SLATER DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) SIMONE BILES, SASHA FARBER DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (Eric McCandless / ABC Via Getty Images) EMMA SLATER, RASHAD JENNINGS DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) KYM JOHNSON, MR. T DANCING WITH THE STARS - 'Episode 2401' - 'Dancing with the Stars' is back with a new, dynamic cast of celebrities who are ready to hit the ballroom floor. The competition begins with the two-hour season premiere, live, MONDAY, MARCH 20 (8:00-10:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network. (ABC/Eric McCandless) NICK VIALL, KEO MOTSEPE, SHARNA BURGESS, ERIKA JAYNE, BONNER BOLTON, NORMANI KORDEI, NANCY KERRIGAN, ARTEM CHIGVINTSEV, TOM BERGERON, ERIN ANDREWS, PETA MURGATROYD, MAKSIM CHMERKOVSKIY, CHARO Up Next See Gallery Discover More Like This HIDE CAPTION SHOW CAPTION of SEE ALL BACK TO SLIDE
ET also caught up with the night's highest scoring star and this season's frontrunner, Normani Kordei, along with her partner, longtime DWTS pro Val Chmerkovskiy, who opened up about how much of an "honor" it is to have Biles on the show.
"Thank you for embracing our show, thank you for doing it, thank you for putting yourself out there," Chmerkovskiy said, addressing Biles. "Hopefully this [incident] doesn't leave a bitter taste in her mouth. I know that she's loved, she's welcome, everybody loves having her here."
The 31-year-old dancer said he fully supports the Olympic champ, and backed her up when it came to her response.
"She kept it real, you know, and sometimes the truth hurts," he said. "Smiles don't get you gold medals and I agree with her as an athlete and I side with her. It doesn't always sound pretty, you know, the gym, the locker room, none of these places are all fun and games. There's hard work and sweat and tears and, most of the time, everything but smiling."
WATCH: 'Dancing With the Stars' Biggest Ballroom Bombshells: Engagements, Baby Announcements, Feuds and More!
As the competition said goodbye to Bonner Bolton on Monday and moved forward to the semifinals, Biles and Kordei are the only remaining female competitors, and the Fifth Harmony singer says she's developed a close friendship with her castmate.
"We're literally the best of friends," Kordei shared. "I love her to death... the cool thing about Dancing With The Stars is that it creates amazing relationships and friendships that will last a lifetime."
WATCH: Simone Biles, Mr. T, Nancy Kerrigan and More Bring the Tears During 'Most Memorable Year' Performances ||||| The question I should have asked (and have of many contestants) was "What's your reaction to the judges comments?"https://www.romper.com/p/simone-biles-response-to-not-smiling-on-dancing-with-the-stars-was-honest-totally-understandable-56568 … | Many women don't like being told to smile, and might appreciate Simone Biles' response in the face of such an expectation. When the judges started offering their critiques of the gymnast's performance Monday night on Dancing With the Stars, host Tom Bergeron interjected to note, "I was waiting for you to smile at some of the compliments—you didn't." At that point Biles did smile, but she did so while replying, "Smiling doesn't win you gold medals." Mashable calls the response "perfect," while USA Today notes that the phrase should be put on a T-shirt. Twitter users loved it, too, and the backlash to Bergeron's comment ultimately elicited a response from him: "Loved @Simone_Biles crisp response to my clumsy question. Curious how she felt about judges comments, I unwittingly added to the smile pile," he wrote, adding that he should have simply asked for her reaction to the judges' comments. As AOL explains, Biles has been a fan favorite this season, but has struggled to connect with the judges. She has DWTS pro Val Chmerkovskiy in her corner; he told ETOnline of her comment, "She kept it real, you know, and sometimes the truth hurts. Smiles don't get you gold medals and I agree with her as an athlete and I side with her." |
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The news was announced earlier than planned due to Catherine's illness, as Nicholas Witchell reports
The Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant with her second child.
Kensington Palace said that - as when the duchess was pregnant with Prince George - she was suffering from very acute morning sickness and was being treated by doctors at the palace.
Prince William and Catherine's second baby will become fourth in line to the throne, behind older brother Prince George, who is 13 months old.
The palace said the Queen and both families were delighted with the news.
Prime Minister David Cameron, Labour leader Ed Miliband and the Archbishop of Canterbury were among those to offer their congratulations to the couple.
Early announcement
Image copyright Reuters
By Peter Hunt, BBC News royal correspondent
For a second time, William and Kate have been forced to announce a pregnancy before the duchess passed the significant 12-week milestone.
For a second time it's because Kate is suffering from an acute form of morning sickness - though this time she's being treated behind palace walls and not at a private hospital with representatives of the world's media gathered outside.
The pregnancy has generated international excitement and will continue to do so but this impending birth will lack the constitutional significance of Prince George's arrival.
As things stand, the as yet unborn girl or boy isn't destined to be a monarch. She or he will occupy the same position as Prince Harry once did. His mother, Diana, used to call him "the back up".
Monday's announcement has performed one unintended but useful role for the Windsors. Headlines about the Queen's view of Scottish independence will be replaced by extensive coverage of a royal birth next year.
Read more from Peter
Overseas tour
The duchess's first pregnancy was revealed when she was just a few weeks pregnant with Prince George after she was admitted to hospital suffering from severe morning sickness in December 2012.
The sickness - called hyperemesis gravidarum - is a condition that may require supplementary hydration, medication and nutrients.
It affects 3.5 per 1,000 pregnancies, causes severe vomiting and can lead to dehydration, weight loss and a build-up of toxins in the blood or urine, called ketosis.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption A beaming Prince William arrives at Oxford University to cheering crowds
Catherine had been due to join Prince William in formally opening a £21m China study centre at Oxford University but the palace said her morning sickness meant that she would no longer be attending.
The Duke of Cambridge arrived at the new study centre at about 13:30 BST, where he was presented with a bouquet of flowers by a young girl.
He told a well-wisher who sympathised with Catherine's condition that she may be over the worst of the acute morning sickness in a "few weeks' time".
Kensington Palace said the duchess's attendance at future events would be decided on a "case-by-case" basis.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The duke was presented with flowers by five-year-old Beth Barton when he arrived at the university
Image copyright Reuters Image caption The duke and duchess recently attended WW1 commemorations
Image copyright PA Image caption They visited New Zealand and Australia with Prince George earlier this year
She is scheduled to be among the guests at the opening ceremony of the Invictus Games in London on Wednesday evening along with Prince William, Prince Harry and the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall.
On Thursday she is due to attend a Drumhead service at Lee Valley Athletics Centre with William and Harry, and later with William to watch Invictus competitors taking part in matches and heats.
The duchess is due to make her first official solo overseas tour, to Malta for two days, from 20 September.
'Big brother'
The baby announcement came after the couple's first child, Prince George, had his first birthday on 22 July.
Prime Minister David Cameron said: "Many congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. I'm delighted by the happy news that they're expecting another baby."
Mr Miliband said: "Fantastic to hear that Prince George will soon be a big brother. Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on their happy news."
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption How the world broke the news of the next British royal baby
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the pregnancy was "fantastic news".
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said: "This is very happy news for any couple, and on behalf of the people of Scotland, I am delighted to send our best wishes to the countess and our hearty congratulations to the royal couple."
The duchess is known as the Countess of Strathearn in Scotland. ||||| Story highlights The baby will become fourth in line to the British throne
"The Queen and members of both families are delighted with the news," the palace says
As in her first pregnancy, Catherine is suffering from acute morning sickness
British Prime Minister David Cameron says he is "delighted by the happy news"
Another royal baby is on the way.
Britain's Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expected to become parents for a second time, Buckingham Palace announced Monday.
"The Queen and members of both families are delighted with the news," the palace said. It didn't say when the due date will be.
As during her first pregnancy, Catherine is suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum, the palace said. The condition involves nausea and vomiting more severe than the typical morning sickness many women suffer during early pregnancy.
She is being treated by doctors at Kensington Palace and didn't accompany Prince William on a planned visit Monday to Oxford.
The decision to announce the pregnancy was made when it became apparent Catherine was not well enough to go on the Oxford trip and that a number of other forthcoming engagements could be affected, a royal source told CNN.
Royal baby: The new line of succession
30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family Britain's Prince William poses with Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, and their children, Prince George and Princess Charlotte, during a family Christmas photo released on Friday, December 18. Hide Caption 1 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family Princess Charlotte plays with a stuffed dog in this photo taken by her mother in early November. Hide Caption 2 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family William and Catherine pose with their children at Charlotte's christening in July. Hide Caption 3 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family Princess Charlotte is seen with her big brother for the first time in a photo released by Kensington Palace in June. Hide Caption 4 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family William and Catherine present their newborn daughter as they leave a London hospital in May. Hide Caption 5 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family In March, William and Catherine visit a center dedicated to community learning in London. Hide Caption 6 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family The royal family celebrates Prince George's first birthday with a trip to the Natural History Museum in July 2014. Hide Caption 7 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family The royal family waves to a crowd before boarding a plance in Wellington, New Zealand, in April 2014. They went on a three-week tour of Australia and New Zealand. Hide Caption 8 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family The royal couple attends the Tusk Conservation Awards at the Royal Society in London in September 2013. Hide Caption 9 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family William and Catherine start an ultra marathon in Holyhead, Wales, in August 2013. It was Catherine's first public appearance since the birth of Prince George. Hide Caption 10 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family The couple are pictured with their newborn boy, Prince George, in 2013. The new parents released two family photographs taken by Michael Middleton, Catherine's father. Hide Caption 11 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family The Duke and Duchess and their newborn son depart St. Mary's Hospital in London in July 2013. Hide Caption 12 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family In June 2013, William, Catherine and Prince Harry arrive at Westminster Abbey for a celebration marking the 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation. Hide Caption 13 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family In April 2013, Harry, Catherine and William make magic on the set used to depict Diagon Alley in the "Harry Potter" films. Hide Caption 14 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family The couple attends a St. Patrick's Day parade as they visit Aldershot, England, in March 2013. Hide Caption 15 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family In September 2012, the couple drank coconut milk from a tree that Queen Elizabeth II planted decades ago in the South Pacific nation of Tuvalu. Hide Caption 16 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family Catherine and William celebrate during cycling events at the Olympic Games in London in August 2012. Hide Caption 17 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family The Queen, William and Catherine stand on the balcony of Buckingham Palace during the finale of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations in June 2012. Hide Caption 18 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family As part of their charity work, the couple attended a "healthy living cookery session" in London in December 2011. Hide Caption 19 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family The newly married royal couple watches a rodeo demonstration at a government reception in Calgary, Alberta, in July 2011. Hide Caption 20 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family Catherine shovels soil during a tree-planting ceremony in Ottawa in July 2011. Hide Caption 21 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family You can feel the love as the happy couple attends a Snowbirds air show during Canada Day celebrations in July 2011. Hide Caption 22 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family U.S. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama meet with the royal couple at Buckingham Palace in May 2011. Hide Caption 23 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family The newlyweds walk hand in hand from Buckingham Palace the day after their wedding in April 2011. Hide Caption 24 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family After their wedding on April 29, 2011, the couple drove from Buckingham Palace to Clarence House in a vintage Aston Martin. Hide Caption 25 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family William and Catherine kiss on the balcony of Buckingham Palace after their wedding ceremony in London. Hide Caption 26 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family The pair returned to their alma mater in St. Andrews, Scotland, in February 2011. They launched a fundraising campaign for a new scholarship. Hide Caption 27 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family The couple poses for photographers to mark their engagement in November 2010. Catherine received the engagement ring that belonged to William's late mother, Diana. Hide Caption 28 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family The couple cheers on the English rugby team during the Six Nations Championship match in London in February 2007. Hide Caption 29 of 30 30 photos: Will and Kate's royal family The couple takes a photo after graduating from the University of St. Andrews in June 2005. They met at school and even shared a house with others while students. Hide Caption 30 of 30
16 photos: House of Windsor babies 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Prince George of Cambridge arrives with parents Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, for his christening on October 23, 2013. Buckingham Palace announced on Monday, September 8, that a second baby is on the way for the royal couple. The child will become fourth in line to the British throne. Take a look through Queen Elizabeth's family line. Hide Caption 1 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Zara Phillips holds daughter Mia Grace, born in January, during horse race trials in July. Phillips, a granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth II, is the daughter of Princess Anne and a cousin of Princes William and Harry. She is married to rugby player Mike Tindall. Hide Caption 2 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Autumn Phillips, the wife of Peter Phillips, attends the Gatcomb Horse Trials in Minchinhampton, England, with daughters Isla and Savannah in September 2013. Peter Phillips is the oldest grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip. Hide Caption 3 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, and wife Sophie, Countess of Wessex, leave Frimley Park Hospital in Surrey, England, with their second child, James, Viscount Severn, in December 2007. Edward is the youngest son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip. Hide Caption 4 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Prince Edward and Sophie pose with their first child, Lady Louise Windsor, in January 2004. Hide Caption 5 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Sarah, Duchess of York, holds 1-week-old Princess Eugenie of York outside London's Portland Hospital in March 1990. She is the daughter of the Duchess of York and Prince Andrew, Duke of York, who is the son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip. Hide Caption 6 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and Sarah, Duchess of York, with their 2-week-old daughter Princess Beatrice at Balmoral Castle in Scotland in August 1988. Hide Caption 7 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Prince Charles, Princess Diana and 3-month-old Prince Harry at St. George's Chapel in Windsor, England, in December 1984. Charles is the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip. Hide Caption 8 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Prince Charles and Princess Diana with their oldest son, Prince William, on a royal tour of Australia in November 1982. Hide Caption 9 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Princess Anne leaves St. Mary's Hospital in London with 3-day-old Zara Phillips in May 1981. Anne is the only daughter of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip. She was married to Mark Phillips from 1973 to 1992. Hide Caption 10 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Members of the royal family with Peter Phillips after his christening in December 1977. Phillips is the son of Princess Anne, seen holding him, and Capt. Mark Phillips and the grandson of Queen Elizabeth II, center, and Prince Philip. Hide Caption 11 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Andrew with newborn Prince Edward, the queen's fourth child, in Buckingham Palace's music room in June 1964. Hide Caption 12 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Queen Elizabeth II holds newborn Prince Andrew in the music room of Buckingham Palace in March 1960. Prince Charles, from left, Prince Philip and Princess Anne are by her side. Hide Caption 13 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Then-Princess Elizabeth with Prince Charles and newborn Princess Anne in September 1950. Hide Caption 14 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies Then-Princess Elizabeth holds son Prince Charles after his christening at Buckingham Palace in December 1948. Hide Caption 15 of 16 16 photos: House of Windsor babies The future King George VI and Queen Mother with their daughter Elizabeth, now queen, at her christening in May 1926. Hide Caption 16 of 16
Why does the 'spare heir' matter?
"The couple only found out very recently. The Duchess has not even reached the crucial 12-week stage," the source said.
William told reporters in Oxford that the couple were thrilled and Catherine was "feeling OK."
"It's been a tricky few days," he said. "We're hoping things settle down soon and she feels better."
The couple's first child, Prince George, was born in July 2013.
The second child will become fourth in line to the British throne.
Prince Charles is first in line, followed by William, Prince George and then eventually the new baby. The new child will knock future uncle Prince Harry down to fifth.
British Prime Minister David Cameron was among those quick to welcome the royal announcement.
"Many congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge," he tweeted. "I'm delighted by the happy news that they're expecting another baby."
Read: Prince George turns 1: Five things to know
Read: Royal baby name: The history behind George Alexander Louis | Get ready for another few months of royal baby fever: Buckingham Palace announced today that Prince William and the Duchess-formerly-known-as-Kate-Middleton are expecting their second child, CNN reports. Once again, the world has learned the news because Kate is extremely sick; she's being treated for hyperemesis gravidarum at Kensington Palace and won't be able to make a planned trip to Oxford with William today. It's not clear how far along the pregnancy is, but the BBC reports that she has not yet reached the 12-week mark. Despite her illness, it's a good day for the royals: "The Queen and members of both families are delighted with the news," the palace says. Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted he was also "delighted by the happy news that they're expecting another baby." The Archbishop of Canterbury and other bigwigs have also offered their congratulations. As for Kate's attendance at future events, it will be decided on a "case-by-case" basis, the palace says. And in case you were keeping track, this baby will knock Prince Harry to No. 5 in the line of succession. |
BEIJING — Life expectancy is 5.5 years lower in northern China than in the south because of heavy air pollution, a new study examining 20 years of data has determined.
The research, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by four economists in China, the U.S. and Israel, examined air quality readings collected in 90 Chinese cities from 1981 to 2000 and compared those with mortality data collected at 145 locations across the country from 1991 to 2000.
Other studies have established strong correlations between air pollution and poor health and attempted to quantify the loss of life in China due to air pollution. But the specificity of the study published Monday may provide a jolt to policymakers and the public as debate intensifies over how much China has sacrificed to achieve rapid economic growth.
The researchers found that a seemingly arbitrary Mao-era economic policy on coal-fired boilers for winter heating created dramatic differences in air quality within China. North of the Huai River, the government provided free coal, while to the south, people were essentially denied central heat. In effect, this policy created two experimental groups that could be compared with each other, and the impact of burning coal on air quality — and on health — could be isolated and quantified.
"We will never, thank goodness, have a randomized, controlled trial where we expose some people to more pollution and other people to less pollution over the course of their lifetimes," said MIT's Michael Greenstone, one of the authors. "It's not that the Chinese government set out to cause [a negative effect on health]. This was the unintended consequence" of the policy at the time.
Greenstone and his coauthors found that north of the river, total suspended particulates, or TSPs, were over 500 micrograms per cubic meter, or 55% higher than levels in the south. Life expectancy in the north was 5.5 years lower — almost entirely because of higher incidences of cardiorespiratory deaths.
Based on their modeling, the researchers estimated that the 500 million residents of northern China in the 1990s collectively lost 2.5 billion years from their lives.
"It's a huge loss. Air pollution in China is really damaging people's health much more seriously than the findings in previous literature" would suggest, said Yuyu Chen of Peking University, another author. "After this study, there should be no argument over whether we should take the air pollution issue seriously.... We need a comprehensive clean air act in China."
The study in the U.S. journal was peer-reviewed, but the reviewers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Dirty air remains a grave concern in China. In January, a combination of windless weather, rising temperatures and emissions from coal heating brought on a prolonged spell of some of Beijing's worst air pollution on record, widely dubbed the "Airpocalypse."
From the capital to Guiyang, 1,100 miles to the southwest, the pollution closed highways, forced the cancellations of airline flights and outdoor activities, and sent countless people to hospitals.
Another spell of terrible air besieged the capital in late June. The episodes have raised debate about whether China is sacrificing too much of its citizens' health for economic growth. In recent years, environmental degradation has sparked numerous protests across the nation, and Communist Party officials are well aware that the issue could become a political crisis.
"It has proven that environmental crises can stir controversy and greatly undermine social stability," the state-run New China News Agency said last month in a commentary.
During the Airpocalypse, China's government experimented with various emergency measures, curtailing the use of official cars and ordering factories and construction sites to close. In June, China's State Council, or Cabinet, announced a package of 10 anti-pollution measures, including forcing heavy industries such as steel manufacturing to replace outdated technologies and publish data on pollutants.
Heavy polluters are being asked to reduce their emissions for each unit of economic output by 30% by the end of 2017. But critics say that if economic growth continues to exceed 7% annually, total decreases in pollution will be small.
Chen noted that based on other studies of how much economic growth Chinese citizens would be willing to give up to prolong their lives, he can conclude that the public would be willing to forgo up to 2 percentage points of economic growth to reduce particulates by 100 micrograms per cubic meter.
Numerous Chinese cities have average particulate readings of 200 to 300 micrograms, Chen noted, while in the U.S. the average is 20 to 30. Long-term exposure to each additional 100 micrograms cuts life expectancy by three years, Chen and his team concluded.
Chen's study looked at TSP levels measured in the 1980s and '90s. That standard has been replaced by one called PM 10, which measures particulates 10 micrometers in diameter or less. That's one-seventh the width of a human hair.
In recent years, scientists have been focusing on even smaller particles, known as PM 2.5. Those small particles are considered more damaging than PM 10, because they can penetrate the lungs and embed deeply in tissue.
In January, PM 2.5 measurements reached more than 1,000 micrograms per cubic meter in some parts of northeastern China. A daily reading above 300 is considered "hazardous" and the index stops at 500. By comparison, the U.S. has seen readings of 1,000 only in areas downwind of forest fires. The U.S. national air quality standard for daily PM 2.5 exposure is 35, and most areas in the U.S. are easily below that threshold.
A study released in December by Greenpeace and Peking University researchers that examined particulate pollution in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Xian estimated that PM 2.5 pollution caused 8,572 premature deaths in those cities alone in 2012, and led to more than $1 billion in economic losses that year. Other research published this spring estimated that air pollution contributed to 1.2 million premature deaths in China in 2010, nearly 40% of the global total.
"We need to raise standards for factories, for gasoline and for heating," said Hongbin Li of Tsinghua University, another author of the study published Monday. "This will be costly and sacrifice growth, but it will save lives and cut medical expenses too."
[email protected] ||||| View Images Haze enveloped Beijing's central business district in January. A new study shows that air pollution from coal-burning home heating systems has shortened life expectancy in northern China by 5.5 years.
Photograph by Jason Lee, Reuters/Corbis
Life expectancy in northern China was 5.5 years shorter than in southern China in the 1990s, and a health risk disparity lingers today, a difference almost entirely due to heart and lung disease related to air pollution from the burning of coal, a new study shows.
The research, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), not only adds to the large body of evidence on the risks of small particle pollution, it provides the most precise measure yet of the health impact of smoke from combustion.
Drawing on what they said was the most comprehensive data set ever compiled in the developing world, the researchers aimed to provide a yardstick that public policymakers can use as they consider the implications of decisions now being made on energy. The findings come at a time when coal is on track to surpass oil as the world's top energy source and 2.8 billion people rely on wood, crop waste, dung, and other biomass to cook and heat their homes. (See related: "Five Surprising Facts About Energy Poverty.")
"We can now say with more confidence that long-run exposure to pollution, especially particulates, has dramatic consequences for life expectancy," said Michael Greenstone, economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who collaborated with researchers in China and Israel. "To be able to say with some precision what the health costs are, and what the loss of life expectancy is, puts a finer point on the importance of finding policies that balance growth with environmental quality."
An Accidental Experiment
The stark new evidence of the impact of particulate pollution emerged due to an unintended social experiment that heightened health risks for 500 million people.
For 30 years, from 1950 to 1980, the Chinese government provided free coal for home and office winter heating systems for anyone living north of the Huai River and Qinling Mountain range. Central planners chose this demarcation because the Huai River follows the January 0°C (32°F) average temperature line. The policy has had a long-lasting impact, because so many of the long-lived heating systems remain in place. Coal is no longer free in the north, but it is still subsidized, while there are still very few cities in the south with heating systems like those in the north.
Though the policy's purpose was to provide warmth in winter to those who needed it most, the result—the new research shows—was a dramatic rise in mortality due to cardiorespiratory illness.
The air concentration of total suspended particulates (TSP) in the north was 55 percent higher than in the south, and life expectancies were 5.52 years lower, between 1981 and 2000, the researchers found.
"It's not that the Chinese government set out to cause this," Greenstone says. "This was the unintended consequence of a policy that must have appeared quite sensible."
Since there are 500 million residents of Northern China, that means air pollution is associated with the loss of more than 2.5 billion life years of life expectancy, the study says. Northern China includes numerous cities that are perennially on the list of the world's most polluted metropolitan areas, including the capital city of Beijing; neighboring Tianjin; Lanzhou, in the Gansu province; and Harbin in Heilongjiang province. (See related: "Quiz: What You Don't Know About Cities And Energy," and "In China's Icy North, Outfitting Buildings to Save Energy.")
Dan Greenbaum, president of Boston-based Health Effects Institute, who was not involved in the new study, said its findings are important because it underscores that although life expectancy has grown significantly overall in China, air pollution is in fact eroding health. "The beauty of this study is they were able to look at different parts of China with different levels of pollution in a way that really helps you to understand the impact on life expectancy that much better," he said.
Greenbaum added, however, that the study, for all its strengths, assumes that home heating systems are the source of the particulate pollution. Northern China also is home to most of the nation's coal-burning power plants, and could also be contributing to the health burden, he said. "I'd say the regional analysis and differences in air pollution is right on the money, but I'd be hesitant to say that any one coal-fired source is better than another," he said. (See related: "Pictures: A Rare Look Inside China's Energy Machine.")
The Health Effects Institute was involved in the landmark Global Burden of Disease study published last year in The Lancet, which tallied 3.5 million annual deaths from respiratory illness due to burning of wood, brush, dung, and other biomass for fuel—making it one of the largest environmental threats to health. (See related, "Cookstove Smoke is 'Largest Environmental Threat,' Global Health Study Finds.")
A Measure of Health Impact
The results suggest that long-term exposure to each additional 100 micrograms per cubic meter of TSP is associated with reduction in life expectancy at birth of about three years. Particulate-matter levels were more than 400 micrograms per cubic meter in China during the years studied. (Beijing made headlines in January when its air pollution levels reached a staggering 700 micrograms per cubic meter, but that was based on a number of pollutants, not just TSP particulates-those measured in this study.)
In contrast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's health-based national air quality standard is 50 micrograms per cubic meter for PM-10. (That stands for particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less, a standard that has come to replace monitoring of "total suspended particulates," which includes anything less than 100 micrometers.)
Although the researchers did not analyze mortality data from more recent years, they did compile air pollution data from 2003 to 2008 indicating that TSP concentrations remain 26 percent higher north of Huai River, "suggesting that residents of the north continue to have shortened lifespans," the study said. Greenstone said the researchers are continuing to work on an effort to gain access to more recent mortality data.
In an email, he said that even if all differences in policy were removed tomorrow, "It will presumably continue to affect health for decades, as the North China population is likely to have been weakened by the many years of exposure to high-pollution concentrations."
The real-life experiment provided an extraordinary opportunity to track air pollution health effects. During the time period studied, China's hukou, or household registration system, restricted mobility so individuals could be assumed to have died where they spent most of their lives. In previous studies, researchers have had to assume that was the case, even though migration is high in the United States, where much of the research has been done.
The researchers collected information on annual daily average concentrations of TSP for 90 cities from 1981 to 2000, hand-entering some of the figures from Chinese language publications, and supplementing this with World Bank data. The life expectancies were calculated from 1991 to 2000, using mortality data derived from China's Disease Surveillance Points (DSP) system, a set of 145 sites chosen to be nationally representative so that it captures the nation's variation in wealth, urbanism, and geographic distribution. The study also included analysis on a wide range of other factors, including temperature data, education, manufacturing's share of employment, and the percent of residents with access to tap water, to rule out causes other than air pollution as the reason for the north-south disparity.
Greenbaum, of the Health Effects Institute, said the new study is likely to be given weight in policymaking in China because it was conducted in collaboration with Chinese researchers.
"There are still challenges, though," Greenbaum said. "The process of implementing rules that deal with air pollution are significant-having the rules in place, having staff to implement and enforce the rules, and making sure enforcement systems are not subject to potential corruption." | By giving free coal to everybody in the north of the country for decades, the Chinese government has inadvertently provided researchers with dramatic proof of the damage heavy air pollution does to health. A new study examining decades of data has found that life expectancy in southern China is 5.5 years longer than in northern China, and the difference is almost entirely the result of heart and lung diseases caused by particulate pollution from burning coal, reports the Los Angeles Times. The researchers estimate that the air pollution cut a staggering 2.5 billion years off the lives of the 500 million residents of northern China. "It's a huge loss. Air pollution in China is really damaging people's health much more seriously than the findings in previous literature" would suggest, says one of the study's authors. "After this study, there should be no argument over whether we should take the air pollution issue seriously." The free coal policy ended in 1980, but northern China is still home to most of the country's coal-burning power plants and researchers believe life expectancies there will remain lower for decades to come, National Geographic reports. |
Since 1991, DynCorp Aerospace Technology has provided support services for State’s counternarcotics program in the Andean region and, occasionally, in Central America. In 1998, State awarded a 5-year, cost plus award fee contract to DynCorp for approximately $170 million to continue this support. The Bureau’s Office of Aviation manages the overall aviation program from its main operating base at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. As the aviation program’s contractor, DynCorp performs major maintenance and initial pilot training at Patrick Air Force Base and flies and maintains U.S. aircraft and trains foreign personnel at various locations in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. The total budget for the aviation program is about $50 million annually. See appendix I for a summary of the aviation program’s staffing and assets by country. In Colombia, the Office of Aviation and DynCorp maintain a headquarters office and hangar at the El Dorado International Airport in Bogota. They also operate forward operating locations at airfields on several Colombian military and police bases. The Office of Aviation and DynCorp fly aerial eradication missions from several locations in Colombia. In recent months, they have used a Colombian Army base at Larandia and a Colombian National Police base in San Jose—usually one or the other but currently both. The Office of Aviation and DynCorp are collocated with the Colombian Army Aviation Brigade in Tolemaida. They use this base primarily for training, maintenance, and repair. As we reported in June 1999 and October 2000, U.S. estimates indicate that the illicit drug threat from Colombia has both expanded and become more complex over the past several years. Insurgent and paramilitary groups have increased their drug-trafficking activities, severely complicating U.S. and Colombian efforts to reduce illicit drug cultivation and production. For example, the insurgents exercise some degree of control over 40 percent of Colombia’s territory east and south of the Andes where, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, most of the new coca cultivation sites and most of the major drug production facilities are located. As a result, the aerial eradication missions are dangerous; and as a normal course, helicopter gunships and search and rescue aircraft accompany the eradication aircraft. Eradication planes and the supporting helicopters are often shot at. Aerial eradication missions have been cancelled or redirected because Office of Aviation or government of Colombia officials considered the targeted locations too dangerous. The Office of Aviation’s oversight of DynCorp met both State’s overall contracting requirements and requirements specified in the contract with DynCorp. State requires the Office of Aviation to examine contractor performance to ensure compliance with the contract and coordinate with the contractor on all matters that may arise in the administration of the contract. The contract includes State’s oversight requirements and also establishes DynCorp’s performance-based award fee plan, which requires the Office of Aviation to evaluate contractor performance every 4 months to determine DynCorp’s monetary award. Under the terms of the contract, DynCorp is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable and allowable costs incurred and an award fee—which averaged about $410,000 each trimester between June 1999 and January 2001—based on the Office of Aviation’s evaluation of DynCorp’s performance. The contract establishes four evaluation categories— management, technical proficiency, safety, and cost—and four performance assessment levels—outstanding, excellent, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. Each assessment level corresponds to a range of percentages of the additional compensation that could be granted to DynCorp. For example, if the Office of Aviation rates DynCorp’s overall performance in the evaluation categories as outstanding, the Office would award a minimum of 95 percent of the award fee. An excellent rating would be 75 to 94 percent of the award fee. A key distinguishing factor between each assessment level is the Office’s evaluation of DynCorp’s ability to identify and correct deficiencies in the program or preclude deficiencies from occurring by proactive management. The Office of Aviation’s oversight measures consisted of regular interaction with DynCorp officials and frequent visits to operating sites. In addition, Office of Aviation officials regularly reviewed reports submitted by DynCorp’s senior in-country managers outlining DynCorp’s performance on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. The Office of Aviation is collocated with DynCorp at the main operating base and in each country, thus allowing Office of Aviation officials to monitor DynCorp’s operations on a daily basis. At the headquarters office in Bogota, Colombia, for example, we observed a senior Office of Aviation official conferring with DynCorp’s operations manager about the flight schedule of the C-27 cargo plane; frequent telephone communication among Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials about operational matters, such as the delivery of needed supplies or the availability of pilots and mechanics at specific locations; and discussions about a program to verify the amount of coca eradicated. Further, during our visits to Larandia and Tolemaida, DynCorp managers made frequent contacts with their Office of Aviation counterparts concerning the status of planned security upgrades and training for the Colombian Army Aviation Brigade, respectively. Senior Office of Aviation officials told us that they held regular meetings at the main operating base with DynCorp managers to discuss program objectives and provide guidance on operational plans and procedures. Several DynCorp employees stated that the regular meetings have improved the program’s operations. The DynCorp maintenance manager in Colombia told us that Office of Aviation officials have incorporated his expertise when drafting or revising standard operating procedures on issues relevant to his duties. Furthermore, a manager’s meeting in April 2001 addressed the delay in shipping special tools to the DynCorp maintenance manager in Tolemaida. To solve the problem, DynCorp is now assessing the status of requests and reviewing the procedures for ordering tools. Senior Office of Aviation officials also made frequent visits to Colombia to oversee DynCorp operations. The operations officer made seven visits from June 1999 to March 2001. On several of his visits in 2000, he provided guidance to help establish the aviation support for the Colombian Army’s Aviation Brigade. He stated that he regularly accompanies the contractors on eradication missions to provide guidance. The Office of Aviation Director and other senior officials told us they made numerous trips to overseas locations, primarily Colombia, during the same period to confer with DynCorp managers and other Office of Aviation officials and provide technical assistance. Office of Aviation officials regularly reviewed DynCorp’s reports, including monthly reports from DynCorp’s in-country managers summarizing the contractor’s performance. These reports are based on daily and weekly reports submitted by managers from each forward operating location. The Office of Aviation also regularly received daily and weekly reports on the flight status of all aircraft and copies of all contractor memorandums dealing with safety. The senior Office of Aviation official in Colombia told us he viewed the contractor’s input as critical for his monthly evaluation of contractor performance. Although the Office of Aviation and DynCorp interacted regularly, several Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials told us that a high turnover of DynCorp managers in Colombia over the past 2 years had led to frequent misunderstandings between the main operating base in Florida and operational sites in Colombia. We were told about several instances when managers in Colombia communicated directly with the main operating base, bypassing DynCorp managers in Bogota. In late 2000, the Office of Aviation encouraged DynCorp to promote a pilot to operations manager in Bogota and, after a new country manager was hired, provided oral and written guidance clarifying the chain of command. A number of Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials told us that these changes had alleviated tension that had been building between the Office of Aviation and DynCorp and greatly improved the overall morale of personnel in the program. Every month, senior Office of Aviation officials in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru submit a report to the main operating base in Florida evaluating DynCorp’s performance using the evaluation categories—management, technical proficiency, safety, and cost. The Office of Aviation Deputy Director consolidates the country reports and an evaluation of contractor performance at the main operating base into an overall monthly evaluation. The consolidated report is used to evaluate DynCorp’s performance and help make the trimester award fee determination. We reviewed the monthly and consolidated reports prepared from June 1999 through January 2001. We noted that the trimester performance evaluations encouraged DynCorp to correct deficiencies. For example: In August and September 1999, the senior Office of Aviation official in Peru rated DynCorp’s performance in quality control (a measure within the technical proficiency category) as unsatisfactory—the lowest of four ratings. He determined that poor quality control resulted in unnecessary downtime for one of the aviation program’s cargo planes and that the downtime affected daily operations. These evaluations were incorporated into the September 1999 trimester evaluation, lowering Peru’s technical proficiency and overall ratings from the previous trimester evaluation. In October and November 1999, Peru’s quality control ratings improved, and in January 2000 a joint review by Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials also noted improvements in Peru’s quality control program. The January 2000 trimester evaluation showed Peru’s quality control as excellent—the second highest of the four ratings. In the May 2000 trimester performance evaluation, the Office of Aviation lowered DynCorp’s safety rating to satisfactory following a March 2000 internal safety survey that was highly critical of the Colombian program. Office of Aviation officials noted that most deficiencies resulted from an unqualified safety manager at one operating location. In response, DynCorp hired a new safety manager, who began conducting regular audits and inspections of each operating location in Colombia. The September 2000 trimester evaluation showed that DynCorp had addressed the shortcomings identified in the internal safety survey. In the January 2000 trimester performance evaluation, the Office of Aviation rated Bolivia’s material support as unsatisfactory. The monthly reports leading to the evaluation cited lengthy delays in receiving spare parts and chemicals for a corrosion control program. Following the poor trimester rating, DynCorp improved the timeliness of its shipments and received an excellent rating in the April 2000 monthly report and the subsequent trimester evaluation in May 2000. In our review of the monthly and consolidated reports, we noted that DynCorp did not meet aspects of an evaluation category but received a high evaluation overall. Office of Aviation officials told us that in assessing DynCorp’s overall performance, the evaluation system permits them to consider mitigating circumstances and other information not specifically in the formal assessment. We found this to be the case with the contract’s technical proficiency category, which is based, in part, on the time aircraft cannot fly due to (1) maintenance deficiencies or (2) needed supplies were not available. During the majority of the period we examined (June 1999 through January 2001), DynCorp met the maintenance and supply rates. However, during two periods when DynCorp did not meet the contract’s rates, it was rated satisfactory or better for these two subcategories. During July through September 1999, more aircraft flying hours were lost due to maintenance problems than the contract allowed. Office of Aviation officials determined that this loss was beyond DynCorp’s control because an unusually high number of aircraft engine changes were needed. During August through December 2000, more aircraft flying hours were lost than allowed by the contract because DynCorp did not have needed supplies. Office of Aviation officials considered the situation beyond DynCorp’s control because it was the Office’s responsibility to provide the needed helicopter mast assemblies. Further, Office officials said that DynCorp did well to come as close as it did to this measure given the lack of mast assemblies. Although we are satisfied that the Office of Aviation considered each country’s reports in preparing the consolidated reports, during July 1999 to May 2000, portions of the Bolivian Office of Aviation senior official’s reports were not included. The current Office of Aviation officials in Bolivia and at the main operating base in Florida told us that the Office of Aviation official in Bolivia at the time sometimes provided information that was irrelevant to contractor performance. As a result, senior Office of Aviation officials at the main operating base often revised or excluded parts of the reports. For example, the official in Bolivia repeatedly reported that several training documents needed to be translated into Spanish, although translation was not part of the contract with DynCorp. In other instances, the official in Bolivia evaluated Office of Aviation performance rather than contractor performance—in more than half the affected reports, the official reported that the Office of Aviation did not provide needed supplies or guidance on the Bolivian nationalization program. To oversee and evaluate the safety of contractor operations and physical security of the aviation program’s facilities, Office of Aviation officials relied on daily interaction with DynCorp’s country managers and forward operating location managers, frequent site visits, periodic reports as part of the trimester performance evaluation, and internal and external reviews. Overall, these assessments judged aviation program operations to be safe and physically secure; however, some concerns have not been resolved. According to Office of Aviation and DynCorp senior officials, enhancing safety is an ongoing process, and their employees should always strive to identify and implement ways to enhance safety. To ensure that aircraft were maintained and operated safely, the Office of Aviation safety manager monitored and evaluated the safety of contractor operations at the main operating base and at overseas locations. The manager said he used a safety checklist based on U.S. government and aircraft manufacturers’ requirements when inspecting contractor operations and maintenance. He said that he monitored the main operating base on a daily basis and made periodic trips to overseas locations to monitor the safety of operations and maintenance. His trip reports identified safety issues that needed to be resolved and progress made in implementing previously identified safety concerns. The safety manager also coordinated with the DynCorp staff responsible for maintaining safe aircraft operations. For example, they worked together to update the aviation program’s accident response plan, modeling it after a plan the DynCorp safety manager used while serving in the U.S. Air Force. In addition, Office of Aviation officials conducted internal Aviation Resources Management Surveys of DynCorp operations at the main operating base and overseas locations. According to Office of Aviation officials, these surveys are intended to provide a stringent on-site safety assessment. The most recent survey for Colombia, completed in March 2000, concluded that DynCorp needed to devote more attention to safety. As previously noted, DynCorp hired a new safety manager who began conducting regular audits and inspections of each operating location in Colombia. In addition, DynCorp made other safety improvements, including establishing safety classes for pilots and instituting an airfield cleanup campaign. In August 2000, the Office of Aviation requested an independent evaluation of aviation operations and safety by the Inter-Agency Committee for Aviation Policy (ICAP). In November 2000, ICAP conducted a review of the Office of Aviation’s operations at two forward operating locations and the headquarters office in Colombia and at the main operating base in Florida. In February 2001, ICAP issued its report. ICAP concluded that the aviation program in Colombia and at Patrick Air Force Base was safe but made approximately 80 suggestions and recommendations to enhance safety and security. Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials have taken action on or implemented most of ICAP’s suggestions and recommendations. For instance: To improve their document control process, Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials told us they clarified the procedures for seeking comments on and approving changes to operating procedures and other directives. To improve maintenance oversight, DynCorp hired additional quality control staff to fill this role. To correct deficiencies identified at fuel stations at forward operating locations, DynCorp hired a fuel management specialist who has ensured that the deficiencies were corrected. In some instances, Office of Aviation officials disagreed with ICAP’s suggestions and recommendations. Among others, we noted the following: ICAP recommended that search and rescue helicopters accompany eradication aircraft on night operations. The Office of Aviation Director and Deputy Director said that eradication planes are much less likely to be shot down during night operations than in the daylight because the planes cannot be easily seen. Deploying helicopters nearby would serve to alert drug traffickers to the impending arrival of eradication aircraft and increase the likelihood that the traffickers could shoot them down. Further, deploying many aircraft during night operations increases the likelihood of aircraft accidents. ICAP recommended that the Office of Aviation update manuals to reflect modifications that were made to certain eradication aircraft. Office of Aviation officials noted that the aircraft in question were originally used 40 years ago as unarmed observation planes by the U.S. military. Later, the U.S. military added armaments and tested and documented their effect on the airplane’s performance. According to the Office of Aviation Director, the aviation program’s modifications have less effect on the aircraft’s performance than the U.S. military’s modifications. He said that as a result the manuals reflect a worse case than necessary and the aircraft does not need additional testing. In addition, such testing would be very expensive. In other instances, Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials agreed with ICAP’s suggestions or recommendations but have not yet corrected the problem. ICAP recommended that the aviation program provide emergency vehicles at its forward operating locations to assist in the event its aircraft have an accident during takeoff or landing. Office of Aviation officials said that they have asked the Department of Defense to identify any excess emergency vehicles in its inventory. The Office of Aviation was also searching for used emergency vehicles because new emergency vehicles are very expensive. ICAP pointed out that the aviation program needed to improve its management information system. Office of Aviation officials said they are implementing a new, integrated management information system and obtaining a satellite communications system to improve communication between remote locations. They said they expect to have both systems in place by November 2001. ICAP found that certification and training records for maintenance personnel were often not readily available or were dated. Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials agreed, and the DynCorp Program Manager said he would either hire a training coordinator or assign existing staff to fulfill those responsibilities. Although Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials assess physical security through regular site visits and inspections, State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security has overall responsibility for ensuring a secure as possible workplace for U.S. government employees at overseas locations. Its Regional Security Office (RSO) in Bogota has assessed the aviation program’s security needs through site visits and inspection reports. RSO and Office of Aviation and other Bureau officials have reviewed Office of Aviation sites in Colombia to determine what action had been taken on previously identified weaknesses and to determine the adequacy of physical security. In May 2001, the forward operating location in use at Larandia still needed security improvements and, according to RSO officials, was especially vulnerable to sabotage. Specifically, a public road runs within a few feet of and parallel to a runway used for aerial eradication missions. On weekends the road carries considerable civilian traffic. The only physical security is a chain-link fence and a partially completed barrier. We observed that the public road had only minimal security with a checkpoint at the base entrance and an unmanned bunker near the airfield. RSO and other security reports have recommended additional security measures, such as adding a second checkpoint and erecting a solid barrier between the road and the airfield. Further, both RSO and ICAP have concluded that the headquarters office and hangar at the Bogota airport are not secure. The ICAP report identified this location as being especially vulnerable. During several weeks in April and May 2001, we observed that only one guard was at the entrance at any given time, and the office had no x-ray or bomb-detection equipment to inspect packages. Further, the office and hangar are on a public road adjacent to a commercial shipping business. Each day, we observed a large volume of vehicles entering the area and parking near the aviation program’s office. Both RSO and ICAP recommended that State find a more secure facility. Office of Aviation and Bureau officials agreed with the physical security assessments and recommendations and said upgrades in security should be completed in the next few months. However, they noted that they must rely on government of Colombia and U.S. Embassy support to make the improvements because aviation program facilities are not located on U.S. government property. Office of Aviation officials told us that the U.S. Embassy is negotiating with the Colombian Army base commander at Larandia to increase security checkpoints on the public road. In addition, the Colombia National Police have increased the number of staff assigned to the airfield. The U.S. Embassy had found a more secure location for the aviation program’s headquarters office and hangar at the Bogota airport and had been negotiating a lease. However, according to Office of Aviation officials, that location is no longer suitable and U.S. Embassy and Bureau officials have begun a search for another location. The Office of Aviation complied with the requirements of the State Department and the DynCorp contract through an integrated oversight and performance evaluation process. The Office’s oversight measures, which include reviews of DynCorp reports and frequent communication, are a fundamental part of the process. These measures provide the Office with sufficient information to evaluate the effectiveness of DynCorp’s performance. Based on this information, each month the Office of Aviation formally notifies the contractor of how well it is doing and actions that it needs to take to improve performance. These steps culminate in a trimester evaluation leading to a performance-based, monetary award. This monetary award serves as an incentive for the contractor to cooperate with the Office of Aviation throughout the evaluation process. Because Office of Aviation and contractor staff in Colombia must perform their mission in a hostile environment, maintaining the safety and security of these personnel, the physical structures, and aircraft is crucial. Although the Office of Aviation has taken steps to improve safety and security in Colombia, it has not completed all actions that ICAP and RSO identified as necessary. We recognize that guaranteeing the safety and security of Office of Aviation and contractor employees and assets is very difficult. Nevertheless, the Office of Aviation has not yet fully implemented all suggestions and recommendations to ensure that its employees and contractors work in locations that are as safe and secure as possible. To improve the safety and security of the Office of Aviation’s forward operating locations and headquarters office in Colombia, we recommend that the Secretary of State direct the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to document what remains to be done to address the suggestions and recommendations made by ICAP and RSO and when action is expected to be completed. In those instances where the Bureau disagrees that corrective action is necessary, we recommend that it document the reasons why it disagrees. The Department of State provided written comments on a draft of this report (see app. II). It stated that the report findings are essentially factual and correct and that it will continue to pursue improvements where needed. State also noted, as we did, that many of the concerns presented in the report are outside the control or influence of the Office of Aviation. Therefore, we urge the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to work with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, in particular, to complete required action in these areas. In addition, in oral comments, Office of Aviation officials provided technical comments that we have incorporated into this report, as appropriate. To determine what oversight and evaluation requirements were applicable for the DynCorp contract, we reviewed State’s regulations for contract oversight and the relevant contract provisions. We also discussed the contract oversight and evaluation requirements with State’s contract officer. To determine whether the Office of Aviation was adhering to the applicable oversight and evaluation requirements, we examined the trimester performance evaluation documentation for the period June 1999 through January 2001 in detail. Specifically, we examined each of the monthly reports from Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru and the consolidated reports and related documents prepared by Office of Aviation and DynCorp officials for the period and discussed the specific reports and issues raised in them with Office of Aviation’s senior officials, including the Director, the Deputy Director, and the Contract Technical Officer, at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, and other Office of Aviation officials in Washington, D.C. In Colombia, we also discussed specific reports with Office of Aviation officials and DynCorp managers who had first-hand knowledge of the evaluations and the status of DynCorp’s efforts in the country at the time the reports were prepared. To determine whether the Office of Aviation ensured the safe operations of its aircraft and physical security of its facilities, we examined the safety issues raised in the monthly reports prepared for the trimester performance evaluations and the findings of the recent ICAP and RSO reports and Aviation Resources Management Surveys. We met with the team that conducted the ICAP review and discussed their methodology and criteria and the support for many of their findings in more detail than is presented in ICAP’s report. We followed up with Office of Aviation officials in Washington, D.C.; Patrick Air Force Base, Florida; and in Colombia to determine the status of their efforts to address the shortcomings raised in the reports. In Colombia, we discussed safety and physical security issues with cognizant Office of Aviation officials and DynCorp managers at the headquarters office at the El Dorado International Airport in Bogota, the forward operating location at Larandia, and the maintenance and training facility at Tolemaida. At each site, we also toured the facilities to make our own observations and met with fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter pilots and mechanics to obtain their views on flight operations, safety, and physical security. In addition, at the main operating base in Florida, we flew on an eradication training mission. Finally, we discussed the Office of Aviation’s implementation of its contract oversight and evaluation requirements and germane safety and security issues and concerns with the U.S. Ambassador and Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia; senior Bureau officials in Washington, D.C.; and the Director and Deputy Director at the main operating base in Florida. Our review was conducted from November 2000 through August 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control; interested congressional committees; and the Secretary of State. Copies will also be made available to other interested parties upon request. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 512-4268. An additional GAO contact and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix III. The State Department’s Office of Aviation manages a major counternarcotics aviation program with a highly mobile workforce that includes State employees and staff on loan from other U.S. agencies. As of July 31, 2001, the Office of Aviation had 24 staff to oversee the contractor- operated aviation program in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Table 1 lists the number of Office of Aviation staff, where they are located, and their major job responsibilities. As of July 31, 2001, DynCorp, the contractor that implements the aviation program, employed about 545 staff—including 25 fixed-wing aircraft pilots hired under a subcontract with Eagle Aviation Services Technology, Inc. Of the 545 employees, 344 are assigned to Colombia—about 90 are U.S. citizens and count against the congressionally-mandated ceiling limiting U.S. civilian contractors in Colombia at any time to 300. About 88 DynCorp employees are stationed in Colombia permanently; the rest— mainly pilots and mechanics—rotate in and out of Colombia about every 2 weeks. Table 2 shows the number of DynCorp employees supporting State’s aviation program, where they are located, and their major job responsibilities. Table 3 lists the number and type of aircraft the Office of Aviation has assigned to Patrick Air Force Base and each of the three countries involved in the aviation program. In addition to the contact named above, Jim Strus and Chris Hall made key contributions to this report. | The Andean region continues to cultivate, produce, and export almost all of the world's cocaine as well as an increasing amount of heroin, according to the State Department. Colombia is the source of 90 percent of the cocaine entering the United States and about two-thirds of the heroin found on the East Coast. Although coca cultivation estimates have fallen by about two-thirds in Bolivia and Peru since 1996, increases in coca cultivation in Colombia have offset much of these successes. Under State's Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, the Office of Aviation, through a contract with DynCorp Aerospace Technology, supports foreign governments' efforts to locate and eradicate illicit drug crops in the Andean region. In recent years, DynCorp has maintained and operated aircraft to locate and eradicate drug crops in Colombia, trained pilots and mechanics for the Colombian Army Aviation Brigade, and provided logistical and training support for the aerial eradication programs of the Colombian National Police and manual eradication programs in Bolivia and Peru. The Office of Aviation met both State's overall contracting oversight requirements and more specific oversight and evaluation requirements in the DynCorp contract. Office of Aviation officials interacted daily with DynCorp managers at the main operating base and in each country, made regular site visits to each country, and reviewed DynCorp's internal reports. The Office of Aviation ensured that its aviation program operated safely and was physically secure, but it can do more. The Office relied on monthly reports and the trimester performance evaluations, as well as periodic surveys and independent assessments of DynCorp's operations and facilities. Overall, these reports have concluded that the aviation program was safe and that physical security was adequate. However, several matters of concern have not been resolved. |
Even for the most experienced swimmer, it's a nightmare scenario. Stranded in the middle of the ocean with no food and the blistering sun burning down on your face. Jelly fish and sting rays circling beneath your feet. That’s what Heather Barnes had to deal with on Friday…for 16 hours.
The 20-year-old Deptford, N.J. native was visiting the islands of Cayos Cochinos on the northern shores of Honduras with other students from the New College of Florida. Barnes, an aspiring marine biologist, had been there for three weeks, snorkeling and studying. Friday marked her last day on the island.
"I couldn't sleep," she wrote on her Facebook page. "So I went to collect coral samples."
Barnes went out into the ocean around 4 a.m. That's when her trouble began.
College Student Stranded at Sea
In an amazing tale of survival, a local college student is stranded in the ocean for 16 hours...and lives to tell about it. NBC10's Na'eem Douglas has the story. (Published Sunday, July 21, 2013)
"I started to cramp up," she said. "I didn't really think it was a big deal at that point. I flipped over and tried to stretch out my leg."
The tide then began to pull her farther and farther away from land. It wasn’t long until Barnes realized the perilous situation she was in.
"About ten minutes later I realized how much farther I had been pulled out," she said. "There was no way I could swim against it at that point."
She was lost in the middle of the ocean. Things only got worse as the sun came out and burned her exposed face. While she had on swim fins and a wetsuit, that didn’t prevent her from feeling the painful stings of jelly fish.
“I tried to stay in the same spot, thinking people would search for me soon,” she said. “But after two hours I still didn’t see anyone. I realized if I was going to make it, I had to swim back myself.”
Exhausted, sunburned and suffering from dehydration and jellyfish stings, Barnes began the agonizing journey back to land.
"There were several times when I thought I wasn't going to make it," she said. "But even when you mentally decide that, your legs are still treading water and you realize you're still keeping yourself above water even when you thought you had given up. So you might as well tread in one direction. You might as well keep going. Even when I thought I had given up, my body hadn't."
Meanwhile trip organizers and college officials were quickly realizing that she was nowhere to be found. Barnes’ mother, Jennifer Dukelow, remembers the phone call she received eight hours after her daughter went missing.
“I just couldn’t wrap my head around it,” she said. “All I could think of was what we had to do.”
Dukelow quickly notified her friends from work as well as her church. The community sprang into action, doing all they could to help save her daughter.
“We had so many people saying, ‘I know this person, I know that person,” Jennifer said. “We got a hold of Congressman Andrews who contacted the embassy. The College of Florida head reached out to Senator Rubio and Congressman Buchanan, keeping the pressure on the embassy to keep pressure on the Honduran government to do everything they could.”
The resort where Barnes was staying sent out fishermen, kayaks and hikers to help find her. Dukelow says her daughter not only received physical help, but spiritual aid as well.
“We had prayer chains going out from all the bodies of the church,” she said.
While friends and family turned to prayer, Barnes says there was one thing that helped keep her motivated as she swam back: food.
"I didn't think about really serious stuff along the way," Barnes said. "I didn't think about my family that much because it seemed like so much responsibility to not only swim for myself but also swim for other people. So I thought about food a lot. I thought about all the food that I hadn't been able to eat on the island in three weeks."
Video Viewer Captures Video of Suspicious Row Home Fire
Finally, after 16 hours in the ocean, Barnes saw land.
"When I first got on land I landed on Lion's Point, which was not part of the island I had come from," she said. "I saw a light flashing on me and two locals came out. They thought I was a shark."
Barnes says the locals bathed her and gave her water. They then kayaked her back to the island where she was staying. Once she returned, she says she was immediately surrounded by a large group of people, overjoyed that she was still alive.
"People were pouring out, carrying me, kissing me and holding me," Heather said. "It was crazy."
Dukelow says she was overwhelmed with emotion when she found out her daughter was safe.
“I heard a beautiful voice at 10 o’clock that night,” Dukelow said. “I was screaming. I dropped to my knees. I just said, ‘thank you God, thank you God!’ She was like, ‘Mom, I’m okay, I’m alive. I kept swimming!’”
Barnes is back in the U.S. and being evaluated by doctors. Dukelow says her daughter suffered bad sunburn but otherwise is doing okay.
“The only explanation I have is that God was with her,” Dukelow said. “You don’t hear stories of people swimming for 16 hours very often with happy endings. We’re just very thankful.”
Barnes will be back in New Jersey on Friday to see her family.
“I’m safe and well loved,” Barnes said. “I’m ready to take a break from the beach for awhile.”
MORE NEWS: ||||| Posted: 07/21/2013
Last Updated: 8 hours and 26 minutes ago
BRADENTON, Fla. - "The two islands were smaller than my thumbs." Heather Barnes, an upcoming marine biology junior at New College of Florida in Sarasota, was drifting away with the current in the early morning darkness of July 19 that enveloped a small bay near Turtle Bay Eco Resort on the edge of the Honduran island of Cayos Cochinos. She had been lying in a hammock – restless – as she thought of the impending end of an amazing trip and the return to south Florida: her job, her studies, her normal life. After telling her roommate she was heading out to finish collecting coral samples before dawn, she slipped into the night and the water around 4 a.m. Friday. She would be alone for the next 16 hours. She was there on a research trip. New College Prof. Sandra Gilchrist, a marine biologist, had been going to Honduras and bringing students along to conduct coral reef research for years, according to the school’s website. Barnes had spent the trip familiarizing herself with the above and belows of most the bay, but hadn’t spent time investigating the far right side. And so there she went, looking for new samples, an aspiring marine biologist on the hunt for her subject of choice. She had followed the buddy system the rest of the trip, but she felt comfortable with only a day left to explore the water on her own. “I was collecting my samples on the right side of the bay, when I started feeling cramping,” she remembered. Her attention switched from the water and the coral to her pain. She began drifting in the water and she tried to work the cramp away. "I was trying to find out what's wrong with my leg." She looked up. The sun was beginning to line over the mountains of the islands. "When I saw the stars and a panoramic view, I didn't think it was a big deal." But the current quickened as she neared the edge of the protective bay and it pushed her farther from the island. "Around 6:30 a.m., I realized that I was really far. I couldn't swim back.” As she tread water, she figured everyone in her group would wake up soon, have breakfast and realize she was missing when she didn’t show up for the day’s activities. "Two hours later, I saw no one." She laughed nervously. "I was so sure, in the movies, the search team comes and they find you right away. There was no one out there … you always expect the infrastructure to catch you no matter what -- and it wasn't there." She didn’t panic when she realized search crews likely had no idea where she was, less than a dot compared to the surrounding Caribbean Sea. She never panicked. What would panicking help? "If the search team isn't going to find me, what else is there to do? We're never really taught what to do when the search team doesn't find you. I realized there's no one coming." Perhaps she would drift to the Honduran mainland. Perhaps to the island of Utila or Isla de Roatan or on to Mexico’s Yucatan. She had no idea where the sea would take her. She had no idea if anyone was coming to rescue her. "The swells were really increasing. At that point, I was starting to get dehydrated; hallucinating.” She became convinced the swelling water was some kind of strange practical joke being played on her. “It sounds really strange now. The swells crashing over my head … felt like a boat was picking me up to save me. I sometimes felt like the ripples were thousands of stingrays. And a bubble was like a lion fish; all these poisonous and dangers things. I put up my fists to fight them.” With the watch she was wearing, she kept time. Two hours after breakfast, she knew she had to try to swim and fight the current back to the island. "Even treading water was pushing me back. I couldn't, with my wetsuit, swim with my arms over. It was a sad doggy paddle." Having pulled off her diving mask and snorkel, seawater poured into her mouth as she swam. "I inhaled a huge gulp of water and started seeing water, and I saw myself choking." Jellyfish surfaced and stung her face and body and she swam. "It just seemed that any time I stopped, I got pushed farther away. Anytime I tried to lie on my back, I got pushed farther away. The wind was pushing me away." She suddenly could accept the fact that she couldn't breathe. "I sort of accepted that I may not make it." She snapped back in a moment of stark reality. Something in her body wasn’t ready to die. "Even when I didn't feel like I was strong enough, there was a part of me that kept going. I had to keep going." The hallucinations continued. She saw friends pop in and out of the water as she swam. She was mad that they kept leaving. She laughed and figured she would see them back at the island. She imagined sea foams were boats. But she never saw any real boats or planes. She was alone. She had been in the water since roughly 4 a.m. She had been in the darkness once that day. She had seen the sun rise. She continued to tread through the sea as the light began to fade. "The sun was just starting to set, and one of the most glorious things that
I experienced: it started raining on the island.” As she tread for her life, she stopped to enjoy it. She wasn’t in her right mind, admittedly. “This cold air came, and it was wet earth and rain and grass and greenness." She wasn’t thinking much about her family or friends as she swam. She wanted to focus on herself, so she wouldn't be worried about letting the others down -- only herself. If she didn’t survive, she thought, what did it matter what others thought? She focused on food. "I was so excited for food. I was so happy for food." It was a basic need that her body want fulfilled. She was swimming to an area of the island she thought she recognized. It was dark again and she was nearing precious land and soon perhaps, food. Then: pain. She was crashing into her beloved coral. But she wasn’t so much concerned with her pain, as much as the damage she was inflicting on the ultrasensitive coral she had come to study. “I felt like one of the worst marine biologists ever." She saw something flash. “I saw an iPhone or something, flashing at me from land." After treading water for 16 hours, she was worried the people on shore, if they were even real, would yell at her for being on their property. There was nothing else to do but ask for help. She collapsed on the coast, somehow surviving her ordeal. She yelled out in Spanish, telling the people she had been out in the sea. Two women grabbed her, started bathing her burned face and body, and gave her dehydrated body the potable water it needed. They put her in a kayak and paddled her toward the resort. She called them angels as they cut through the wat. Somehow they knew where to take her. When they reached the resort, "every single door on the island opened and people started pouring out … people started kissing me and hugging me. I was so confused." Honduran military showed up with machine guns, as they made sure it was Heather Barnes and she was alive and safe. As she took in the delirious scene, she realized she had not been alone. Certainly, she went into the sea, and came back from the sea on her own, but there were hundreds on the islands and back in the United States scrambling to be with her again. The group she was with, along with her professor, were searching for her and were in contact with authorities on the U.S. mainland to do everything possible to assemble a larger search, more qualified search. Locals on the island had called friends and families on the other islands and had them searching. Hikers and kayakers were out assisting the search. She later learned all those on and near the island were searching for her in the opposite direction she had gone. But they had no way of knowing. The Honduran Navy was dispatched. The United States Coast Guard was notified. Barnes’ mother, Heather Dukelow, was contacted and she contacted the US Embassy in Honduras. Her father reached out to a congressman in her native New Jersey, Rep. Robert Andrews. The provost of New College, Dr. Stephan Miles, who had been alerted to the search by Barnes’ professor in Honduras, was reaching out to Florida lawmakers. Someone was able to get in touch with a staffer for US Rep. Vern Buchanan. “He was in the process of beginning to help," Miles said by phone Sunday, "including getting in touch with Sen. Marco Rubio’s office, when she was reported found.” The provost had been in contact with the professor, the manager of the resort and Heather's mother, up until the time they all knew she had been found around 8 p.m. in Honduras. Those who loved her had been doing everything they could to find her. Back in the resort, the group sat around her in a lounge area. A cook made her soup with vegetables. Friends were trying to get her to drink more and more liquid. Someone asked her if she wanted to call her mother. She didn’t, but not because she didn’t want to let her mother know she was safe. She was hoping no one had informed her mother of her adventure. She figured she could tell everyone back home about what happened when she got home; no need to alarm anyone now that she was safe. Someone put a phone to her. It was her mother. "I could tell it was that country code and assumed it was the Embassy,” Dukelow said. “I dropped to my knees and I had several people from my church and around here ... had this prayer vigil going -- and I just dropped to my knees." They Skyped for an hour the next day. She left Honduras 36 hours later, as planned, and flew to Tampa via Miami. When she arrived back in Sarasota, she spent some time in an urgent care facility. She was released later that night and went to get prescribed medicine, before continuing with a plan that was set before her Honduran experience. She went to her grandmother's home in Bradenton, where she would wait to return to her home in New Jersey for a few days, before getting back to classes with the new school year soon to come. As she sat and spoke to a photographer that night, she admitted she'll likely not go to a beach for | A college student from New Jersey says she was stranded at sea for 16 hours while swimming off Honduras and is now safe. Heather Barnes went to collect coral samples for a project she's doing at New College of Florida at 4am Friday when she says she started to cramp and got pushed out to sea. "I tried to stay in the same spot, thinking people would search for me soon," she told NBC Philadelphia. "But after two hours I still didn't see anyone. I realized if I was going to make it, I had to swim back myself." Suffering from hallucinations, sunburn, jellyfish stings, and the realization that she might not survive, Barnes says she eventually reached land, where two people gave her water and used a kayak to take her back to the resort where she was staying. Turns out her classmates, professors, and even the Honduran navy were all searching for her, reports ABC Action News. "I felt like I cheated death or like I cheated the ocean out of something," she says. Barnes is in Florida recovering. |
Both social service agencies and the courts play an important role in addressing child welfare issues. In the District, CFSA, in conjunction with other agencies, provides important services to promote the safety and well being of children and families. CFSA coordinates public and private partnerships to preserve families and to protect children against abuse and neglect. The Family Court of the D.C. Superior Court has jurisdiction over child welfare cases. The Family Court judges oversee foster care and adoption cases and make decisions concerning the existence of maltreatment, the placement of children in state custody, and whether reasonable efforts have been made to preserve a family to avoid the need for foster care. Additionally, the court holds hearings to determine the appropriateness of the placement of a child in care, terminates parental rights, and finalizes adoptions. Effective child welfare systems have processes for collaborating and sharing information among the agencies that provide child welfare-related services to children and families, such as mental health services and substance abuse treatment. Like many other jurisdictions, the District has faced challenges in its ability to share information across agencies. In previous work, we reported that CFSA’s operations have been affected by the lack of integration of child welfare services with other support services. Additionally, it is important that the social service agencies and courts receive and share information they need on the children and families they serve. Caseworkers need to know from the court the status of a child’s case, when a hearing will take place, and a judge’s ruling. Family courts need case history information from caseworkers such as whether services have been provided, who is caring for the child, and if there has been evidence of abuse or neglect. However, CFSA and the District’s former Family Division of the Superior Court have had difficulty sustaining effective working relationships. As a result, cases moved slowly through the system, and decisions intended to improve the safety and well being of children and their families were delayed. In order to address some of the challenges the court and District agencies have faced, Congress passed the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001. The act reformed court practices and established procedures intended to improve interactions between the court and social service agencies in the District. Family court reform in the District includes several key components that require the direct involvement of CFSA and its social workers. One component involves revising case management practices through the implementation of the one family/one judge concept. Under this concept, the District’s Family Court plans to assign the same judge to all cases involving the same child and family, where practicable, feasible, and lawful. In addition, the Court has asked the Office of the Corporation Counsel to assign attorneys to particular judicial teams, comprised of a judge or magistrate judge. Judicial teams may also include social workers and parents’ attorneys, among other participants. Another key component of District Family Court reform will be on-site coordination of social services at the court. The Mayor must assign staff from several agencies to work on-site at the Family Court. These agencies include CFSA, District of Columbia Public Schools, the Housing Authority, Office of Corporation Counsel, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the Department of Health. In addition, the Mayor must appoint a liaison between the Family Court and the District government. The role of the family court liaison will be to coordinate the activities of CFSA’s social workers as well as representatives of other District social service agencies at the Family Court. The liaison is yet another key component of court reform in the District. The Family Court Act required the Chief Judge of the Superior Court to submit to Congress a transition plan discussing the transition to a Family Court. This plan was completed in April 2002, and in May 2002, we reported to Congress on this plan. Also, the act required the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit a plan to Congress within 6 months of enactment of the Family Court Act, or on July 8, 2002, for the integration of District agency computer systems with those of the Family Court. Congress required us to prepare and submit within 30 days of the Mayor’s plan an analysis of the plan’s contents and effectiveness. On July 8, 2002, the Mayor issued the required plan: Supporting the Vision: Mayor’s Plan to Integrate the District of Columbia’s Social Services Information Systems with the Family Court of the D.C. Superior Court. The plan consists of two parts. Part I addresses the integration of social service agencies’ computer systems with the computer systems of the D.C. Family Court. This part of the plan focuses in large part on the District’s Safe Passages Information Suite (SPIS) initiative as a means of both integrating computer systems and social services within the District’s executive agencies as well as integrating these systems and services with those of the Family Court. We limited our review of SPIS to how it will be used to achieve integration with the Family Court. Part II of the plan describes the Mayor’s proposal for spending the $700,000 appropriated by the 2002 D.C. Appropriations Act—$200,000 for the completion of the plan to integrate computer systems and $500,000 to CFSA for social workers to implement family court reform. According to the Appropriations Act, these funds shall not be made available until the expiration of the 30-day period that begins on the date we submit our report to the Congress. However, because the 30-day period excludes weekends, holidays, and days the Congress is adjourned for a period of more than 3 days, these funds would not likely have been available until after the start of fiscal year 2003. On August 2, 2002, a supplemental appropriations act was passed specifying, among other things, that these funds shall remain available until September 30, 2003. Since the federal funds have not been released, District officials reported that they used local funds to prepare the computer system integration plan and to plan or, in some cases, complete family court reform activities. The District estimated that the implementation of the Mayor’s entire plan to integrate social services’ computer systems with those of the Family Court, including short-term and long-term initiatives, will cost $18 million and be completed in 4 years. The District has approximately $4 million reserved for SPIS. The Mayor’s plan contains useful information on intended efforts to integrate the District’s computer systems with those of the Family Court, including the planned use of appropriated funds, but it does not contain important elements and its effectiveness is contingent on the District’s ability to resolve critical issues and implement disciplined IT management processes. Information on these additional elements, how critical issues are to be addressed, and how information technology is to be managed, while not explicitly be required by the Family Court Act or the Fiscal Year 2002 D.C. Appropriations Act, would enhance the usefulness of the Mayor’s plan. As required by the Family Court Act, the Mayor’s July 8 plan provides information on integrating the computer systems of the District with those of the Family Court. According to the plan, the District identified the five integration priorities on the basis of its analysis of high-level requirements and best practice research. These integration priorities are (1) calendar management; (2) notification of the current status of cases, pending dates or deadlines and new events associated with cases, and case dispositions; (3) electronic document management of forms, reports, court orders, or any documents associated with a court case; (4) inquiry-level sharing of critical case information; and (5) reporting. Equally important, according to the D.C. Courts’ director, information technology division, the Family Court agrees with the integration priorities set forth in the Mayor’s plan. The Mayor’s plan also provides other useful information, such as a summary of the District’s current health and human services IT environment and its limitations, as well as descriptions of the types of information that various District offices need from the Family Court. Finally, the plan describes the Mayor’s approach for developing and implementing the SPIS initiative, which is central to the District’s achieving a long-term solution to both the integration of its health and human services systems with the Family Court’s systems and mitigating the current limitations of the District’s health and human services IT environment. Although the Mayor’s plan provides general descriptions of its current environment and its future plans, it does not include important elements, such as project milestones, that, while not explicitly required by the Family Court Act, or the fiscal year 2002 D.C. Appropriations Act, are critical to assessing the adequacy of the District’s strategy. District IT officials noted that they have not yet completed essential analyses, such as an analysis of requirements that would provide the basis for this additional information. Specifically, the plan does not include the following: Project milestones. Although the Mayor’s plan discusses a variety of short- and long-term integration strategies, it does not contain milestones for completing these activities. Without milestones, the Congress has neither the information necessary to assess whether the initiatives discussed in the plan can be realistically accomplished nor important criteria with which to measure the progress of the plan’s implementation. According to District IT officials, the deadline for submitting the Mayor’s plan to the Congress did not allow them enough time to develop milestones. The officials also said that they expect to develop a project plan that lays out the project components and milestones for the implementation of the Mayor’s plan by the end of the calendar year. Specification of integration requirements. The Family Court Act calls for the District to integrate its computer systems with those of the Family Court but does not define integration. The term “integration” can be defined in various ways and how it is defined can significantly affect how the system is designed and developed. Although the Mayor’s plan includes a set of integration principles, such as that integrated systems should improve information quality by eliminating redundant data entry, it does not include a definition of integration within the context of the Family Court Act. Defining integration for the SPIS project early in the planning process is critical because this definition will set the boundaries and help set expectations for the initiative and the individual projects that will make up this initiative. A District IT official agreed that developing an operational definition of integration is important and said that the District planned to establish one; however, the official did not know when this would be done. How the District will integrate the systems of the specific offices covered by the Family Court Act. The Family Court Act lists six District offices that the Mayor’s plan is to address regarding accessing and sharing information on individuals and families served by the Family Court: the D.C. Public Schools, the D.C. Housing Authority, CFSA, the Office of the Corporation Counsel, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the Department of Health. Although the Mayor’s plan includes a general discussion of the types of information that each of these entities needs from the Family Court, the integration strategies laid out in the plan did not always address the extent to which the information needs of each of these entities will be addressed. For example, the plan discusses a short-term integration strategy for achieving inquiry-level sharing of critical case information with CFSA, but not for the other offices listed in the Family Court Act. District IT officials agreed that the plan does not fully define how the systems of each of the offices identified in the Family Court Act will be integrated with the Family Court’s systems and said that the District is still in the process of analyzing these offices’ needs and defining requirements. However, these officials also noted that the plan discusses short-term integration strategies with CSFA’s FACES system, a system that provides CFSA with unified case management and reporting, which they expect will be a major system involved in integrating the Family Court’s and the District’s health and human systems. Details on the type of information the District will be providing to the Family Court and how this will be achieved. The Mayor’s plan includes a discussion of the Superior Court’s planned implementation of the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS), which is intended to be the single point of integration for the District agencies’ interface with the courts. However, the plan does not specify the type of data that the District will be providing to IJIS or the District offices and systems that will be providing these data. Instead, the plan notes that the Superior Court will rely on its IJIS contractor to determine the detailed business requirements of the IJIS stakeholders, which includes the District offices. District IT officials explained that in developing the plan, they focused on what the District offices need from the Family Court, not what these offices needed to provide to the court. The officials said that time constraints prevented them from performing an in-depth review of what they need to provide to the Family Court, and they, therefore, did not include these requirements in the plan, but that the District is working closely with the courts to define these requirements. The D.C. Court’s director, information technology division, agreed that the Court and the District were working closely to define the interfaces between IJIS and the District’s systems and was complimentary about the level of cooperation from the District’s offices in performing this analysis. Finally, many of the solutions to achieving integration with the Family Court discussed in the plan are depicted only as proposals or options; thus, the plan is not always definitive about exactly how it will achieve the five integration priorities. For example, to achieve the integration priority of electronic document management, the Mayor’s plan lists four options that a cross-organizational team that is to be assembled is expected to evaluate. District IT officials said that the merits and details associated with these proposals and options will be further defined as part of the SPIS framework development project. However, until the District decides which, if any, of these proposals and options it will implement, the Congress will not have critical information with which to evaluate the feasibility and completeness of the District’s plan. The Mayor’s plan assumes that certain issues, such as ensuring the confidentiality of certain records and data quality, will be successfully resolved without explaining how this will be achieved. These issues are formidable, and the effectiveness and ultimate success of the Mayor’s plan will largely depend on the District’s ability to overcome them. Among the critical issues that must be successfully addressed to help ensure the effectiveness of the Mayor’s plan are the following: Confidentiality/privacy issues. As in other jurisdictions, laws and regulations govern the sharing of data in many District social services programs. For example, federal legislation relating to student educational records and mental and physical health informationprovides privacy protection for and limits access to such information. Upon reviewing the Mayor’s plan, the American Bar Association’s directors of child welfare and research noted that the District should address this critical issue as soon as possible to enable data integration to go forward. The Mayor’s plan recognizes the criticality of data confidentiality issues, but does not provide solutions or alternatives, although the plan indicates that there is a mayoral committee addressing the confidentiality restrictions affecting SPIS data sharing. If not resolved early in the planning stage, confidentiality issues are likely to significantly limit the functionality and flexibility of SPIS and consequently its integration with the Family Court system. Data quality issues. To be effective, systems must contain high-quality data (e.g., data that are accurate, complete, consistent, and timely). The importance of this issue is illustrated in our prior reports in which we have noted that data accuracy, completeness, and timeliness problems have hampered the District’s program management and operations.The Mayor’s plan recognizes problems with one significant element of data quality—ensuring consistency—and proposes developing common identifiers for persons receiving District services as a necessary, albeit difficult, step in integrating social service IT systems in the District. However, the plan does not address or propose remedies for known data accuracy and completeness problems that must be resolved to ensure the success of the District’s Family Court integration efforts. For example, according to the Mayor’s plan, the FACES system is paramount to the success of the SPIS initiative. However, our December 2000 report noted that this system lacked complete information, and according to CFSA’s Director, while the situation has improved, as of mid-June this problem still existed. Current legacy system limitations. According to the Mayor’s plan, the District has disparate information systems that are built on a number of different technology platforms with varying limitations. These limitations vary and include systems that (1) have limited functionality; (2) use old technology and require extensive work to maintain or upgrade them; and (3) do not have, or have limited, external interfaces (in some cases because of confidentiality concerns). Under the SPIS initiative, the District plans to use a commercial middleware tool along with data marts to synchronize case file attributes across systems and bridge multiple hardware and software system differences. Although this may be an appropriate strategy, the use of middleware and data marts would still require the District to address the limitations of its underlying legacy systems. For example, according to Gartner, Inc., a leading private research firm, while the use of middleware has advantages, there are legacy system issues, such as data inconsistency and synchronization and ownership issues that would still have to be addressed. Therefore, unless the District identifies and overcomes the limitations of these legacy systems, the functionality and performance of SPIS could be negatively affected. U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges to Ensuring Children’s Well-Being, GAO-01-191 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 29, 2000). IT workers remains high, and shortcomings in IT human capital management can have serious ramifications. The Mayor’s plan states that the District has a wide range of technological improvement priorities and that SPIS is just one of many strategic priorities. These priorities will require IT personnel with a myriad of skills, which may be acquired through a variety of approaches, including the use of contractors. Accordingly, acquiring, retaining, and effectively managing the right people with the right skills are key to the success of the District’s integration effort. Another key to the effectiveness of the Mayor’s plan is developing and using disciplined processes in keeping with IT management best practices. We and others have issued guides that discuss IT management practices used by leading organizations and frameworks for measuring an organization’s progress in implementing critical processes. These processes are especially important for projects such as SPIS, in which new ground is being broken. According to the District’s research, there are currently no examples of robust, two-way electronic information exchanges between social service agencies and court systems readily adaptable. The American Bar Association’s directors of child welfare and research also noted that they know of no robust examples of data exchanges between courts and child protection agencies. Such an uncertain and high-risk environment underscores the need to implement disciplined IT management practices to manage and mitigate risks. In addition to SPIS, using disciplined IT processes is important to the successful development of other new systems discussed in the Mayor’s plan that are either in the planning or development stages. For example, according to the plan, the Metropolitan Police Department is in the early planning stages for a reporting and information delivery system that it expects to implement in early 2004 that the District believes should be a target system for the Family Court in its integration planning. In the past, we have reported that the District has not implemented disciplined IT management processes and, as a result, the District has had difficulties developing, acquiring, and implementing new systems. To avoid similar problems with the SPIS project, the following are examples of IT management processes that are critical for the District to employ to help ensure that its investment is utilized wisely and results in a system that meets its objectives in a timely and cost-effective manner. Use of a life-cycle model. The District has not adopted a life-cycle model in developing SPIS that defines expectations for managing IT investments from conception, development, and deployment through maintenance and support. Life-cycle models require organizations to carefully manage risks such as an unrealistic schedule and budget expectations. Without such a model, processes for software development and acquisition will likely remain ad hoc and not adhere to generally accepted standards. Critical to the success of SPIS are the adoption of a life-cycle model and the development of a plan to institutionalize and enforce its use. According to an IT official, the District has drafted a life-cycle model that is being tested on other system development activities. Development of an enterprise architecture. The development and use of enterprise architectures is a best practice in IT management that leading public and private organizations follow. An enterprise architecture, which is a well-defined and enforced blueprint for operational and technological change, provides a clear and comprehensive picture of an entity or a functional or mission area that cuts across more than one organization—in this case, the child and family social services function. An enterprise architecture consists of three integrated components: a snapshot of the enterprise’s current operational and technological environment, a snapshot of its target environment, and a capital investment roadmap for transitioning from the current to the target environment. Our experience with federal agencies has shown that attempting a major modernization effort without a complete and enforceable enterprise architecture results in systems that are duplicative, are not well integrated, are unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface, and do not effectively optimize mission performance. According to an IT official, because of its complex environment, the District plans to develop an evolving enterprise architecture in components. This official further said that when the enterprise architecture will be completed would be based, in part, on available funding. Proceeding without this enterprise architecture, the District’s SPIS initiative would be at higher risk of not meeting its objectives. The risk associated with the District’s lack of an enterprise architecture is compounded by its plan to develop, in parallel, an SPIS framework and a pilot program. Specifically, the District plans to (1) develop an SPIS framework, which would include identifying and prioritizing agencies and business processes to be supported by SPIS, the design and documentation of the “to be” business environment, and the identification and sequencing of specific SPIS projects; and (2) pilot aspects of SPIS functionality at two District offices (the functions to be piloted have not yet been determined). Completing these projects in parallel is risky since the District would be designing, developing, and implementing systems before it has identified its current needs and developed a plan to achieve them. Use of adequate security measures. A basic management objective for any organization is to protect its data from unauthorized access and prevent improper modification, disclosure, or deletion of financial and sensitive information. Accordingly, implementing adequate security measures to achieve this objective is of paramount importance, particularly for projects such as SPIS that are expected to contain sensitive personal information. However, we have previously reported serious and pervasive computer security weaknesses in the District.The Mayor’s plan recognizes the importance of computer security in implementing the SPIS and sets forth seven strategies for ensuring a secure environment, such as limiting the number of authorized users and strong user training programs. The effective implementation of adequate security measures will be a critical factor in ensuring the success of the SPIS project. Finally, major IT investments should be supported by a well-developed business case that evaluates the expected returns against the costs. Our guidance on IT investment management calls for agencies to identify the expected costs and benefits of proposed investments. We are concerned about whether the District will perform this type of analysis. According to an IT official, the District is not planning to complete a formal cost/benefit analysis nor an analysis of alternatives in support of its Family Court integration strategy. Instead, the District plans to rely on professional judgment in assessing potential solutions within available resources. Moreover, with respect to analyzing alternatives, this official said that the District lacks staff resources and funding to conduct such an analysis. However, without an explicit understanding of the expected costs and benefits up front, the District lacks the basis for sound financial and strategic decisions and a baseline against which managers and executives can measure progress. Of the $700,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002 in conjunction with the Family Court Act, $200,000 is designated in the Mayor’s spending plan to support the development of a plan integrating the computer systems of the District government with those of the Family Court. The spending plan identifies $158,000 of this $200,000 for the “development of the plan” and $42,000 for “implementation planning.” The $158,000 for the development of the Mayor’s computer integration plan has, according to the spending plan, provided for a project team consisting of District and contracted staff. The spending plan lists activities involved in the development of the plan; however, it does not associate costs with these activities. For example, the budget for the development of the plan has provided for a project team to perform activities such as the identification of the stakeholders and District agencies affected by the Family Court legislation, the completion of the technological gap analysis of District interactions with the Court, and the assessment of available technologies to enhance data integration, but there are no costs associated with these steps. The remaining $42,000 budgeted for implementation planning, according to the spending plan, is being reserved to perform certain other activities including preparation of cost estimates for components of the plan, prioritization of the components, and the development of an implementation time line. The activities are important steps in developing the plan for integrating the District and Family Court computer systems. The Family Court Act places several requirements on the Mayor. The act requires the Mayor, in consultation with the Chief Judge of the Superior Court, to ensure that representatives of the appropriate offices of the District of Columbia government that provide social services and other related services to individuals served by the Family Court are available on- site at the Family Court; to provide information to the Chief Judge of the Superior Court and to the Presiding Judge of the Family Court regarding the services of the District government that are available for the individuals and families served by the Family Court; and to appoint an individual to serve as a liaison between the Family Court and the District government for ensuring that the representatives of the appropriate offices are available on-site at the Family Court. Additionally, the Family Court Act urged that the District enter into a border agreement to facilitate the placement of children in the D.C. child welfare system in homes and facilities in Maryland and Virginia. The 2002 D.C. Appropriations Act provided $500,000 to the Mayor “for the Child and Family Services Agency to be used for social workers to implement Family Court reform.” The Mayor states that these appropriated funds will be used to support his responsibilities under the Family Court Act and identifies three categories for the use of the funds. The three categories are (1) liaison activities, (2) on-site coordination of services and information, and (3) border agreements. The plan indicates that the appropriated funds will be used as specified in table 1. The three categories listed in the Mayor’s plan and our analyses are as follows. Liaison Activities. The plan does not provide the details necessary to show how CFSA social workers will be involved in these activities, as required for these activities to be funded from the $500,000 designated by the D.C. Appropriations Act. For example, the plan lists staff time for preparation and presentation of magistrate judge training and upcoming training for family court personnel as a liaison activity. While Family Court officials said that this training involved CFSA social workers, the Mayor’s plan does not clearly state whether social workers will be involved, define the type of training, or describe how these expenditures will support CFSA social worker family court reform activities. On-Site Coordination of Services and Information. According to the Mayor’s plan the family court liaison will coordinate the activities of representatives from CFSA as well as representatives of other District social service agencies at the Family Court. However, the plan does not describe how the funded activities involve the use of social workers to implement family court reform. Furthermore, the Mayor’s plan provides limited information on issues essential to coordinating services. According to national court associations, an effective approach for establishing and sustaining operational integration among agencies includes (1) establishing interagency policies for coordinating on-site social services; (2) specifying the types of services to be provided by each participating agency; and (3) identifying the financial, human capital, computer, and other resources to support coordinated services. The Mayor’s plan provides limited information on these essential issues. The plan states that agency representatives will be available to the court and that computer support at the court will be provided. However, the plan does not describe planning efforts with the Family Court on related space and facilities requirements, costs associated with service coordination, the types of services that will be provided, or the number of staff that will be on-site. It does not indicate whether the CFSA staff on-site will include social workers. Family Court officials said that planning on-site services coordination with District offices is in its early phases and that service representatives from District offices will face challenges in identifying and coordinating social services for children and families served by the Family Court. Border Agreement. The Mayor plans to use $131,000 of the $500,000 designated in the D.C. Appropriations Act for border agreement activities, such as negotiating an agreement with surrounding jurisdictions. While a border agreement may benefit District efforts to achieve more timely placement of District children in Maryland and Virginia, border agreement activities included in the Mayor’s plan do not specify how CFSA social workers will be involved in the process or how their involvement relates to family court reform. Integrating the computer systems of District agencies with those of the Family Court as well as other aspects of family court reform are complex and will take years to complete. Much of the complexity stems from the critical issues upon which successful family court reform depends and the need for disciplined IT management processes to mitigate the risks posed by these issues. This complexity coupled with the multiyear completion timeframe makes planning the computer systems integration and other key elements of court reform difficult. In spite of the difficulty, the Mayor’s plan provides a useful overview of the District’s current health and human services IT environment, the current vision for integrating its health and human services computer systems with those of the Family Court, and how it intends to use funds that were appropriated for planning computer systems integration. However, the plan does not contain important details that, while not explicitly required by the Family Court Act or the fiscal year 2002 D.C. Appropriations Act, would enhance the usefulness of the plan by providing information that would facilitate an assessment of its feasibility and effectiveness. Information on project milestones, for example, could help the District and the Congress assess progress in implementing court reform and serve as an early warning system if a key milestone is not met. Furthermore, it is not clear in the plan how the $500,000 in appropriated funds are to be used for CFSA’s social workers to implement family court reform, as required by law. More details regarding the liaison, on-site coordination, and border agreement activities are needed to ensure that appropriated funds are used as Congress intended. To keep the Congress fully informed about the District’s progress in implementing court reform, we recommend that the Mayor periodically report to the Congress on the District’s progress in integrating its computer systems with those of the Family Court. These reports should provide milestones, including those associated with completing the essential analyses and addressing the critical issues and disciplined IT management practices discussed in this report, and the District’s progress in achieving them. To help ensure that the planned expenditures support the purpose designated in the D.C. Appropriations Act, we recommend that the Mayor provide more details to the Congress to show how the $500,000 will be used for social workers to implement family court reform. We received written comments on a draft of this report from the City Administrator of the District of Columbia. These comments are in appendix II. The City Administrator generally agreed with our findings related to the Mayor’s integration plan and offered to answer any further questions regarding the use of the $500,000 for CFSA for social workers to implement family court reform. However, the City Administrator did not directly address our recommendations. Regarding the Mayor’s integration plan, the City Administrator agreed that the successful execution of the plan is contingent on resolving critical issues and implementing disciplined processes. The administrator also said that the District is faced with daunting complexity in planning, designing, building, and implementing the capabilities described in the Mayor’s plan and recognized that it must exercise responsible planning for resources by conducting detailed planning and financial analyses of proposed information system improvements. Accordingly, the City Administrator reported that during the next 6 months the District plans to complete more detailed scope definitions, specification of integration requirements, timelines and milestones, and cost analyses of the planned integration activities. As for the plans to spend the $500,000, the City Administrator provided information that better explains how some of the activities will involve CFSA’s social workers. However, there are still some activities for which more detail is needed. For example, the comments note that the Mayor began cross-agency planning for coordination of services and information and list various related activities. Two of these activities appear to directly involve social workers—(1) training for CFSA social workers, OCC attorneys and others, and (2) analysis of cases to be transferred to the family court by CFSA social workers. However, it is still unclear the extent that the other activities—development of the CFSA-OCC pilot and changes to the CFSA court liaison functions—will involve CFSA social workers. The City Administrator also discussed a CFSA and Family Court pilot project designed to assess whether a particular approach to case assignment would shorten the road to permanency for children. This activity was not included in the Mayor’s plan. As for the border agreement, the comments address three activities included in the Mayor’s plan—negotiating the agreement, staffing, and implementing the agreement. Although the City Administrator stated that senior staff from the agency continues to be personally involved in the negotiations with Maryland officials, the comments do not indicate whether or how social workers are involved. It would appear that this activity does not directly involve social workers. Furthermore, according to the comments, the District agreed to fund two positions in Maryland, including one social worker. The City Administrator does not state the nature of the other position nor does he state that the social worker will be a CFSA social worker. However, the comments note that the costs of implementing the agreement will include funds to expedite licensing of CFSA social workers in Maryland. Because the City Administrator did not specifically address our recommendations in his comments, we continue to think it is important that the District keep the Congress informed of its progress in integrating its computer systems with those of the Family Court and that the Mayor provide more detail to show how the appropriated funds will be used for social workers to implement family court reform. We are sending copies of this report to the Office of Management and Budget, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; and the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, House Committee on Government Reform. We are also sending copies to the Mayor of the District of Columbia; the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families, and Elders; the Chief Technology Officer; the Director of the Child and Family Services Agency; the Chief Judge of the Family Court of the District of Columbia Superior Court; and other District agencies. Copies of this report will also be made available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-8403. Other contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix III. To assess the contents and effectiveness of the District of Columbia Mayor’s plan to integrate the computer systems of District agencies with those of the D.C. Family Court, we reviewed and analyzed the Mayor’s plan. As part of this analysis, we (1) reviewed the requirements for the plan set forth in the Family Court Act and the fiscal year 2002 D.C. Appropriations Act; (2) reviewed our prior reports and IT management best practice guidance; and (3) interviewed appropriate District IT officials, including the Chief Technology Officer and programmatic officials, such as the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth, Families and Elders. We also interviewed the Director of the D.C. Courts’ information technology division and reviewed documents related to the court’s system development effort, the Integrated Justice Information System. In addition, we obtained comments on the Mayor’s plan from officials of the American Bar Association and the Virginia Supreme Court’s court improvement program. To analyze the Mayor’s spending plans for integrating computer systems and supporting Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) social workers’ efforts to implement family court reform, we (1) reviewed the District’s spending plans, (2) interviewed and obtained information from officials in the District’s Office of Chief Technology Officer and CFSA, and (3) reviewed legislation related to the $700,000 in federal funds provided in the District’s Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. We did not independently verify or audit the cost information provided from District officials. We also interviewed program officials from the Child and Family Services Agency; the Departments of Human Services, Mental Health, and Health; the Office of Corporation Counsel; the Office of the Chief Technology Officer, the Mayor’s office; and District of Columbia Public Schools. In addition, we interviewed court experts in the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, American Bar Association, Council for Court Excellence, and officials from two other states, New Jersey and Virginia, that have undertaken efforts to integrate computer systems of courts with social services. We also examined documents related to policies of several District social service agencies and the District’s Family Court. The following individuals also made important contributions to this report: Patrick diBattista, Linda Elmore, Maxine Hattery, Linda Lambert, James Rebbe, Norma Samuel, Rachel Seid, and Marcia Washington. Human Services: Federal Approval and Funding Processes for States’ Information Systems. GAO-02-347T. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2002. Foster Care: Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding Permanent Homes for Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain. GAO-02-585. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2002. D.C. Family Court: Progress Made Toward Planned Transition and Interagency Coordination, but Some Challenges Remain. GAO-02-797T. Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2002. D.C. Family Court: Additional Actions Should Be Taken to Fully Implement Its Transition. GAO-02-584. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2002 D.C. Family Court: Progress Made Toward Planned Transition, but Some Challenges Remain. GAO-02-660T. Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2002. D.C. Courts: Disciplined Processes Critical to Successful System Acquisition. GAO-02-316. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2002. District of Columbia: Weaknesses in Financial Management System Implementation. GAO-01-489. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2001. District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges to Ensuring Children’s Well-Being. GAO-01-191. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2000. Foster Care: Status of the District of Columbia’s Child Welfare System Reform Efforts. GAO/T-HEHS-00-109. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2000. Foster Care: States’ Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and Safe Families Act. GAO/HEHS-00-1. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 1999. District of Columbia: The District Has Not Adequately Planned for and Managed Its New Personnel and Payroll System. GAO/AIMD-00-19. Washington, D.C.: December 17, 1999. District of Columbia: Software Acquisition Processes for A New Financial Management System. GAO/AIMD-98-88. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 1998. | Congress passed the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 to reform court practices and establish procedures to improve interactions between the District of Columbia's Family Court, of D.C. Superior Court, and social service agencies in the District. The act directed the Mayor to prepare a plan to integrate the computer systems of District agencies with those of the Court. The fiscal year 2002 D.C. Appropriations Act authorized $200,000 for integrating the computer systems and $500,000 for social workers to implement family court reform. The act also required the Mayor to prepare a plan for these funds and mandated that the plan be issued on July 8, 2002. The Mayor's plan provides such useful information as (1) an outline of the District's current health and human services information technology environment and its information needs and limitations regarding the Family Court, (2) planned and possible short- and long-term initiatives to integrate the District's computer systems with those of the Family Court, (3) five technological integration priorities, and (4) how the $200,000 in appropriated funds will be spent. However, the District has not yet completed essential analyses, such as a requirements analysis, that would provide the basis for additional information. Based on GAO's analysis of the Mayor's plan for using the $500,000 in appropriated funds, it is not clear how the funds are to be used for social workers to implement family court reform, as required by law. The plan discusses the District's use of funds for service liaison, on-site coordination, and border agreement activities, but provides no detail on whether and how these activities involve social workers. |
D.C. police identified a suspect in a horrific quadruple murder that last week in the exclusive Woodley Park neighborhood of northwest D.C. (Published Thursday, May 21, 2015)
UPDATE: The man accused in the brutal murder of a Washington, D.C., family and their housekeeper worked at the victim's business "sometime in the past," Police Chief Cathy Lanier said during a press conference Thursday.
Go here for the latest updates in the case.
DNA found on a piece of a pizza led police to the man they believe brutally murdered a Washington, D.C., family and their housekeeper last week in the exclusive Woodley Park neighborhood in northwest D.C.
Daron Dylon Wint, 34, is wanted for first-degree murder while armed, police said late Wednesday. Just before midnight Wednesday, police were seen questioning people at Wint's last known address in Prince George's County, Maryland.
U.S. Marshals and the New York Police Department believe Wint could be in the New York City area, multiple law enforcement sources familiar with the investigation told NBC 4 New York.
Daron Dylon Wint, 34, is wanted for first-degree murder while armed
The break in the case came when investigators found DNA on a piece of Domino's pizza that was delivered the night of May 13, sources close to the investigation told News4.
Police believe three family members — including a 10-year-old boy — and their housekeeper were killed the next day, hours after someone delivered $40,000 in cash to the multimillion-dollar house.
The family had likely been kept bound and threatened overnight May 13, sources close to the investigation tell News4. The cash had been withdrawn from an account at the company where one of the victims was the CEO, the sources said.
Sometime after the cash arrived the following day, the home was set on fire, leading to the discovery of the bodies.
Sources: $40,000 Cash Delivery in D.C. Mansion Murders
A source close to the victims in a gruesome quadruple murder and arson case say the day the victims were discovered, someone delivered $40,000 in cash to the home along Woodland Drive in northwest DC. Pat Collins reports. (Published Wednesday, May 20, 2015)
Wednesday's developments were major breaks in a case that seems almost unimaginable in its brutality and in its location. It happened in the 3200 block of Woodland Drive NW in Woodley Park, a neighborhood of security systems and landscaped lawns just blocks from the vice president's home and near the National Cathedral.
Savvas Savopoulos, 46; his wife, Amy Savopoulos, 47; their son, Philip; and housekeeper Veralicia "Vera" Figueroa, 57, were found dead after the home was set on fire. Three of the victims had been beaten and stabbed to death, and some of the bodies smelled of gasoline, police said.
Philip's body was so badly burned that investigators aren't sure if he was injured before the fire was set, and he still hasn't been officially identified, sources close to the investigation said.
Video Camera Captures Girl Dragged by School Bus
Philip's body was found in his room; three other bodies were found on the floor in another bedroom.
The family Porsche was found burning in a church parking lot in suburban Maryland. Police had circulated the grainy image of a person leaving the scene of the car fire, wearing black clothing.
Wint has a court record that includes charges of assault, carrying concealed weapons and theft in Prince George's County. One of those records lists a home address that is less than a half-mile from where the car was found burning.
Message From the Housekeeper
Savopoulos was the CEO of American Iron Works, which helped build major D.C. construction projects, including the Verizon Center and CityCenterDC. Savopoulos and his wife, Amy, were well known in the neighborhood, often hosting parties for neighbors and friends, according to The Washington Post; the family had attended St. Sophia Greek Orthodox Cathedral in the neighborhood.
Philip was a fourth-grader at St. Albans, the private school near St. Sophia and the National Cathedral; two daughters were away at private boarding schools.
Neighbors who have been in the home said the family had an extensive and valuable art collection, which was on display a couple of years ago during the Christmas house tour put on by St. Albans.
The timeline of events that investigators are working from seems to match information from a longtime housekeeper for the Savopoulos family, who said she was a good friend of Veralicia Figueroa.
Nelly, who didn't want her full name used for security reasons, owns her own cleaning company and worked for the family for more than two decades. Nelly allowed Figueroa to work with her at the Savopoulos family's home.
On May 13, Figueroa texted Nelly to say she wanted to work at the home, and planned to finish by 3 p.m., Nelly told News4.
That evening, Nelly missed a call from Savvas Savopoulos, saying Figueroa was spending the night at the family's home. She heard the call on voice mail the next morning.
An Eerie Encounter
Nelly said Figueroa's husband went to the home the morning of May 14 to look for her and had an eerie encounter. No one answered the door when he knocked on it, but he told Nelly he had the feeling someone was standing just inside the closed door.
He went around the back of the house to knock again. As he did, Nelly said, Savopoulos called his cell phone. Savopoulos said Figueroa was OK and had spent the night, according to Nelly.
The fire at the home was reported about four hours later.
Nelly said Figueroa was hard-working and loved life. She'd come to the United States from El Salvador to earn money before planning to retire next year.
A GoFundMe page was created to help with her funeral costs.
Throughout the week, federal agents and D.C. police have continued to gather evidence at the Woodley Park home. Meanwhile, in New Carrollton on Monday, authorities used a bloodhound to try to track down the person who torched a 2008 blue Porsche 911 stolen from the home on the day of the fire.
The Porsche was found burning in the parking lot of St. Christopher's Episcopal Church. At a banquet hall nearby, surveillance video of a person of interest in the case was captured on a security camera.
The person is difficult to see in the video, and is dressed in dark clothing, including a hoodie with the hood pulled up.
Watch the Police Video Here
Meanwhile, neighbors and friends are mourning the family -- and left dreading the idea of what they endured in the hours they may have been held captive in their own home.
"This was a beautiful family, a wonderful family with children," said Coco Palomeque, a friend of Amy's. She described Amy as "beautiful, vibrant, full of life and full of energy -- ready to jump into any project to help others, to help her community."
"The community where they lived really loves them, and we are here to support them if they need us," she said.
Staff members Pat Collins, Meagan Fitzgerald, Mark Segraves, Jackie Bensen and Shomari Stone are among those who contributed to this report. ||||| D.C. police have an arrest warrant for a 34-year-old man, Daron Dylon Wint from Maryland. Law enforcement sources said DNA evidence linked him to the killing of Savvas Savopoulos, his wife, young son and housekeeper. (Jhaan Elker/The Washington Post)
D.C. police have an arrest warrant for a 34-year-old man, Daron Dylon Wint from Maryland. Law enforcement sources said DNA evidence linked him to the killing of Savvas Savopoulos, his wife, young son and housekeeper. (Jhaan Elker/The Washington Post)
[ Update: Suspect worked for victims’ family business, police say ]
D.C. police said late Wednesday that they have identified a suspect in the killings of Savvas Savopoulos, his wife, young son and housekeeper, who authorities believe were held captive in the family’s Northwest Washington home.
Police said they had obtained a warrant for the arrest of Daron Dylon Wint, who they said is 34 and is from Maryland. They said they do not know his whereabouts.
The stunning break in the case came after police matched Wint to DNA found on the crust of a Domino’s pizza that had been ordered to the house the night of May 13, as the victims were being held, according to three law enforcement officials with knowledge of the investigation
The next morning, Savvas Savopoulos’s personal assistant dropped off a package containing $40,000 in cash at the home, according to the officials and police documents.
1 of 19 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × Searching for clues in quadruple homicide View Photos $40,000 in cash was taken to the D.C. home as the four victims were being held captive, according to law enforcement officials. Caption Police apprehended a man they say killed a Northwest Washington businessman, found dead with his wife, son and housekeeper. Daron Dylon Wint, in a 2007 photo. Wint has been charged with first-degree murder in the death of Savvas Savopoulos, a District businessman. Additional charges are likely, officials said. Reuters Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue.
Hours later, the multimillion-dollar house was on fire, and the four occupants were dead. When firefighters arrived that afternoon, the cash was gone, as was a blue Porsche owned by the family. The vehicle was found later that day, torched in a church parking lot in Prince George’s County.
Information about the money drop adds a perplexing new dimension to a case that has riveted Upper Northwest Washington as well as the District’s business and society circles with which the couple had been intimately involved. Savvas Savopoulos, 46; Amy Savopoulos, 47; their 10-year-old son, Philip; and housekeeper Veralicia Figueroa, 57, all were killed.
Law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said detectives think that the family and housekeeper had been held overnight in the home near the vice president’s mansion and that at one point they may have been bound.
Authorities said they are investigating whether there are any links to Savvas Savopoulos’s business or personal life. Savopoulos owned or was involved in several businesses.
Police documents, obtained by The Washington Post, show that the assistant had been helping Savopoulos, who was rushing to complete a martial arts studio in Chantilly, Va. It was unclear whether the assistant made contact with anyone inside the house when he delivered the money. Police documents show that he was at a hardware store near the Chantilly studio in western Fairfax County from 11:30 a.m. to noon May 14 and was still in Virginia when 911 calls came later that afternoon about the fire 30 miles away in the District.
D.C. police have not disclosed whether they know of a motive for the killings. But a timeline of Savvas Savopoulos’s movements is beginning to emerge from the police documents.
The documents show a flurry of phone calls among Savvas Savopoulos, a bank, an accountant, the personal assistant, a construction company executive and Savopoulos’s American Iron Works company in the hours before the fire. The calls started shortly after 7 a.m. May 14 and ended just before noon. The fire was reported at 1:15 p.m.
D.C. police released this photo of Daron Dylon Wint, who is suspected in the killings of Savvas Savopoulos, his wife, young son and housekeeper. (Courtesy of Metropolitan Police Department)
The assistant, who did not return messages left on his cellphone Wednesday, tried to call Savvas Savopoulos about 1:40 p.m. but got no answer, the police documents show. Savvas Savopoulos had called the assistant at 11:54 a.m. — the last incoming or outgoing call he made or answered before the fire.
The four victims were found on the second floor of the Savopoulos home in the 3200 block of Woodland Drive NW. Police have said little about how they were killed, other than that three had wounds consistent with blunt force or a sharp object. Authorities also have said the fire was set.
Savvas Savopoulos was the president and chief executive of American Iron Works, which supplies metal to large building projects across the region. He and his wife were active in Washington social circles and with charitable and political fundraising. Their two teenage daughters were away in boarding school at the time of the killings.
The funeral for the three Savopoulos family members is June 1 at St. Sophia Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Northwest Washington. Figueroa’s body will be flown to her native El Salvador for burial.
[Slain housekeeper planned to join kids in El Salvador]
Authorities have been trying to determine when the family and housekeeper were last safe and when they encountered the killer or killers.
One longtime American Iron Works employee told police that he last saw Savvas Savopoulos at the Chantilly studio about 6 p.m. May 13, according to police documents. That employee told investigators that workers had been rushing to complete the martial arts studio, which had a grand opening planned for May 15. Savopoulos appeared on several Internet boards as a martial arts hobbyist and was involved in some exclusive clubs for the sport.
A second housekeeper, Nelitza Gutierrez, has reported a strange series of voice mails and text messages from Savvas and Amy Savopoulos beginning the night of May 13. Gutierrez, who had worked for the family for 20 years, said in an interview that the messages left her with the impression that something was amiss with her employers.
She said that on May 13, Savvas Savopoulos had asked her not to come to the D.C. home the next day — the day of the killings — even though she normally worked there on Thursdays. Instead, he told Gutierrez that he preferred her help the following day with the grand opening in Chantilly.
Gutierrez said Savvas Savopoulos left her a voice mail on May 13, saying that Figueroa, the housekeeper who was killed, planned to stay overnight at the family’s home, which she described as unusual. He said in the message that Amy Savopoulos was ill, that Philip was recovering from a concussion and that the family needed Figueroa’s help. Savvas Savopoulos asked Gutierrez to let Figueroa’s family know not to expect her.
Gutierrez said she didn’t hear the voice mail until the morning of May 14. She called Amy Savopoulos and got no answer. Just before 10 a.m., Gutierrez said, she got a text message from Amy Savopoulos: “I am making sure you do not come today.”
Gutierrez said that she knew nothing about the money that was dropped off May 14 and that she had never seen the assistant or anyone else drop off cash to the Savopoulos home in the 20 years she had worked there.
On May 15, the day after the killings, the personal assistant called the veteran American Iron Works employee’s cellphone “and was crying,” according to the police documents. The assistant “stated that he had dropped off a package” at the Savopoulos house on May 14, on his way to Chantilly, the documents say.
Little could be learned about Wint late Wednesday, and it was unclear whether he had any previous connection to the Savopoulos family. Authorities offered a reward of up to $25,000 for information leading to his arrest and conviction, and asked that anyone with information about the case call police at 202-727-9099.
Alice Crites, Sari Horwitz, Antonio Olivo and Cheryl W. Thompson contributed to this report. ||||| Washington police secure the vicinity around the fire-damaged multimillion-dollar home in northwest Washington, Wednesday, May 20, 2015, where four people were found dead May 14. Washington Police Chief... (Associated Press)
This combination of undated photos provided by the Washington, D.C., police shows Daron Dylon Wint. The police issued a news release late Wednesday, May 20, 2015, saying they are looking for Wint in connection... (Associated Press)
Investigators inspect the fire-damaged multimillion-dollar home in northwest Washington home, Wednesday, May 20, 2015, where four people were found dead May 14. Police Chief Cathy Lanier earlier identified... (Associated Press)
Washington police secure the vicinity around the fire-damaged multimillion-dollar home in northwest Washington, Wednesday, May 20, 2015, where four people were found dead May 14. Washington Police Chief... (Associated Press)
The man, who was still at large, was identified as 34-year-old Daron Dylon Wint. An arrest warrant has been issued for Wint on charges of first-degree murder, the Metropolitan Police Department said in a news release.
Maryland court records indicate that a Daron Wint, who is the same age as the suspect, was convicted in 2009 of second-degree assault and sentenced to 30 days in jail. A Darin Dylon Wint was charged with burglary in 2010 and pleaded guilty to malicious destruction of property, and a protective order also was taken out against him that year, the records show.
Police did not immediately return a request for comment on whether the two men are one and the same, or on the discrepancy in the spelling of the first name. Police Chief Cathy Lanier did not immediately respond to an email seeking more information about Wint, why he was identified as a suspect, and whether he knew the family.
Authorities have previously released very little information about who might have killed the family or why. When firefighters responded to the house for a fire May 14, they found the slain bodies still inside. Authorities believe the fire was intentionally set.
Slain were 46-year-old Savvas Savopoulos; his 47-year-old wife, Amy; their son, Philip; and housekeeper Veralicia Figueroa.
Voicemails and text messages to household staff suggest that something was amiss at the home for many hours before the bodies were found. A Porsche belonging to the family was later found set on fire in a parking lot in suburban Maryland. The Maryland court records show that Daron Wint and Darin Dylon Wint are from Lanham, Maryland, which is near where the car was found.
Another housekeeper, Nelitza Gutierrez, says she thinks someone invaded the home. | A Domino's pizza was delivered to a Washington, DC, home the evening before four people were found dead inside—and its crust could be the suspect's downfall. Police have identified 34-year-old Maryland resident Daron Dylon Wint as a suspect, and law enforcement sources tell the Washington Post that he was identified through DNA found on the crust of the pizza, which investigators believe may have been delivered while Savvas Savopoulos, his wife Amy, their 10-year-old son Philip, and housekeeper Veralicia Figueroa were being held captive. A warrant has been issued for Wint's arrest, but his whereabouts are unknown. The warrant charges Wint with first-degree murder while armed. His criminal record includes charges of carrying concealed weapons and theft, NBC Washington reports. Court records list a Lanham, Md., address for Wint close to where the Savopoulous family's blue Porsche was found on fire in a parking lot, the AP reports. Savopoulos was the CEO of American Iron Works, and his assistant reportedly dropped off $40,000 in cash at the home hours before it went up in flames. In the hours before the fire, there were multiple phone calls between Savopoulos, the assistant, an accountant, a bank, and another exec at the construction firm, according to police documents seen by the Post. |
Spare parts are defined as repair parts and components, including kits, assemblies, and subassemblies required for the maintenance of all equipment. Repair parts and components can include repairable parts, which are returned to the supply system to be fixed when they are no longer in working condition, and consumable parts, which cannot be repaired cost-effectively. The Navy owns and operates about 4,000 aircraft. These aircraft contain about 70,000 repairable spare parts, such as landing gear, navigational computers, and hydraulic pumps. These spare parts, in turn, consist of thousands of individual parts or items. When any of these spare parts or individual items fails to perform properly, or reaches the end of its service life, it must be replaced with a repaired or newly purchased part. This maintenance work takes place at government repair facilities and commercial contractor facilities across the country. Providing logistics support for these aircraft is the responsibility of the Naval Air Systems Command and the Naval Supply Systems Command. Overall Navy logistics policies and procedures are the responsibility of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Logistics). The Navy’s repairable spare parts are managed under the Navy Working Capital Fund. This is a revolving fund that relies on revenues generated from the sale of parts and services to customers, which are then used to finance subsequent operations. The fund is expected to generate sufficient revenues to cover the full cost of operations and to break even over time— that is, not to have a gain or a loss. Customers order parts from the Navy’s supply system and pay the working capital fund from their budgets. Each fiscal year, the Navy establishes the prices for spare parts, setting them to correspond with the customers’ aggregate budgeted amounts. This concept, in theory, ensures that customers have, in the aggregate, sufficient funds budgeted to purchase their anticipated requirements of spare parts. The process of setting prices for spare parts begins 2 years before the fiscal year in which the prices take effect and involves customers, a number of Navy entities, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). During this process, the customer price is set on the basis of projected customer requirements, as well as anticipated repair costs and management overhead fees. Figure 1 shows the major elements that are considered in developing the customer price for Navy spare parts. In our recent review of prices for a selected group of spare parts for three Navy aircraft and their engines that we examined in the November 2000 report, we found that prices continued to rise. Our analysis suggested that the major factor driving these increases was the cost of the materials used to repair spare parts, while other factors, such as higher overhead fees and growing labor costs, also contributed. However, because of the lack of relevant information in the Navy’s maintenance and repair databases, we were unable to determine what the underlying reasons were for the increases and as a result, what management action might be appropriate to reduce or stabilize the prices. The prices of repairable aviation spare parts continued to increase dramatically. Between fiscal year 1999 and 2002, the total cost of spare parts increased from $1.6 billion to $2.7 billion. Of this total, the repair portion rose from $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion, an increase of 50 percent and represented 6.6 and 8.3 percent, respectively, of the Navy and Marine Corps’ operation and maintenance funds that are used to sustain the readiness of the operating forces. Our analysis of 453 selected spare parts showed that the prices paid by customers increased an average of 37 percent between fiscal year 1999 and 2002 (see app. II). We looked at these because they were the most costly repair parts from three aircraft (the H-53 helicopter, the F/A-18 Hornet fighter and attack aircraft, and the AV-8B Harrier attack aircraft) and their engines. We found that the prices for 195 of the 453 parts dropped an average of almost 35 percent (see app. III) due to reductions in both repair costs and overhead fees. The prices for the remaining 258 parts, however, spiraled dramatically—an average of 91.5 percent during the 3-year period (see app. IV). The price hikes for 233 of the 258 spare parts (90 percent) were primarily due to higher repair costs, while those for the remaining 25 (10 percent) were due to higher management overhead fees. We selected 31 spare parts from the total population of 453 to identify the factors driving increases in repair costs. These parts were all repaired at government depots. As table 1 shows, the average increases in total repair costs for these 31 parts varied widely—from a modest 8 percent for the F/A-18 Hornet aircraft to more than 200 percent for two engine systems (F-402 and T-64). A closer look at the repair data indicated that the largest increases were generally attributable to the higher costs of the materials used to repair the spare parts, while a smaller increase resulted from higher labor costs. For example, one of the parts, a rotor compressor for the F-402 engine, increased over 86 percent in price from $48,890 in fiscal year 1999 to $91,060 in fiscal year 2002. The material portion of the costs for repair had increased from $16,386 to $57,727 (over 252 percent), while labor had decreased from $10,739 to $9,092 (approximately 15 percent) and overhead had increased less than 12 percent from $21,765 to $24,241. (See app. V for detailed repair cost data for each part.) Figure 2 shows how the cost components contributed to the price that customers paid for another of these parts, a $45,120 turbine rotor for the F-404 engine in fiscal year 2002. It shows that a significant portion ($30,893, or 69 percent) of the price stemmed from the cost of the materials used to fix the rotor. A recent Naval Air Systems Command study underscored that rising material costs used in repairing spare parts are a contributing factor to price increases. The study compared repair costs in its maintenance facilities for the first quarter of fiscal year 1997 with those for the first quarter of fiscal year 2000. It concluded that while the average annual repair costs for more than 26,000 parts increased by 5 percent, the cost of materials rose by 8 percent; in contrast, labor costs rose less than 1 percent. Furthermore, the study showed that in the case of 105 high- demand parts material costs jumped by about 16 percent while labor costs increased by 3 percent. We found a similar link between higher material costs and repairable spare parts price increases. Our examination of the aggregate prices of individual repair items used in the 31 spare parts indicated that three factors may have contributed to higher material costs for 25 of these parts: (1) higher prices for individual repair parts used, (2) the use of more parts in the repair process, and (3) changes in the mix of repair parts used. Another possible factor identified through discussions with Navy officials was that some repairs used new, more expensive repair parts. However, the Navy’s data systems did not provide sufficient information on each repair event to allow us to determine why the prices increased for each spare part. For example, we could discern that more material had been used in a repair, but we could not determine why this had happened: Had maintenance procedures changed? Was the repairable part in unusually poor condition? Had there been extensive cannibalization of the part’s components? Or were there other reasons? Without more specific information on each spare part or repair event, management would not be able to determine—or address—the reasons for rising repair costs. As noted above, our ability to determine the reasons for rising spare part costs was impaired because the Navy lacked an effective data system to collect and analyze information relevant to material costs and usage. The current data system tracks repair costs for groups of spare parts but not for individual parts. The costs are accumulated for the group, divided by the number of spare parts in the group and analyzed as an average cost per item in the group. As a result, government repair facilities cannot determine the cause of significant increases in repair costs for an individual spare part. For example, the average reported material cost for individual repair parts needed to repair compressors for the F-402 engine increased from $14,269 in fiscal year 1998 to $65,494 in fiscal year 2000. While the detailed requisition data identifies what materials were ordered, it is impossible to determine—when more than one repair is associated with the requisition—how much of the material was used in a specific repair. Consequently, the fact that more material is being used on multiple repairs can be discerned, but not the reason for the increased usage. In addition, there is no indication of whether the differences in materials ordered are due to the repair of one part or to the group as a whole. The Navy has made little progress in identifying the underlying causes of spare parts price increases. While it has various initiatives aimed at reducing overall costs, it does not have a planned set of actions to identify the underlying causes of price increases. The Navy has only partially implemented a recommendation we made in our November 2000 report to identify and implement solutions to reduce and stabilize prices. It has undertaken several initiatives to control repair costs, but these have centered on enhancing the reliability and maintenance process, which could help stabilize prices for repairable parts. However, they do not deal with the underlying reasons for cost increases. One new initiative, which will allow the Navy to track individual spare part items by their serial numbers, may provide the tool it needs to effectively monitor and control its spare part prices. Also, the Navy might learn from DLA’s efforts to address price increases for consumable spare parts. Of three recommendations we made in our November 2000 report, the first one, which was directly concerned with investigating why prices were rising, has been only partially implemented. This one recommended that the Secretary of Defense ensure that the Navy follow through on the results of its planned studies by identifying and implementing solutions to reduce and stabilize prices. See appendix VI for a discussion of the other two recommendations. To start addressing this recommendation, the Navy has undertaken some cost-controlling initiatives aimed at improving the reliability of spare parts and is implementing a serial number tracking program to improve inventory management. However, to date, the initiatives have not focused on identifying the reasons for price increases. The Navy’s recent initiatives and studies (by contractors, headquarters, and repair depots) center on improving the reliability of its aviation spare parts in order to control its flying hour costs. Conceptually, if the reliability of parts used in the Navy’s aviation systems is improved, then the demand for those parts will fall since they will not be replaced as often, and the cost to the flying hour program will be reduced. While this approach has merit, it focuses only on the demand side of the total flying hour program cost equation. As a result, significant price increases or decreases can occur without management being aware of the underlying causes. An April 2001 study by the Center for Naval Analyses showed that the cost of repairable parts continued to climb, even though the number of Navy flight hours recorded decreased. In examining why the cost per flying hour increased from fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 1999, the study concluded that the main reasons were a decline in the number of hours flown and the increased age of Navy aircraft. The study also found that price increases for spare parts, overhead costs, quantity of materials ordered, and the mix of spare parts ordered also contributed significantly to higher flying hour costs. Price increases were identified as a significant factor that should be studied further. A Navy logistics official told us the service has used the study to justify a potential 2 percent budget increase for repairable spare parts starting in fiscal year 2000. The Navy has recently undertaken a number of initiatives, such as the Logistics Engineering Change Proposals program, that are designed to control the costs of individual spare parts by improving their reliability. These efforts focus on improving the reliability of repairable parts, and thereby reducing demand while reducing or eliminating support costs. Repairable parts are selected for the study on the basis of their high historical costs and low reliability. Then the proposals are evaluated to determine whether a change in the part would be justified based on the anticipated investment return equal to two times the cost within 5 years. While these efforts have resulted in some significant reported cost savings, they have been geared toward increasing the reliability of parts, thereby reducing the total costs of these parts. Other ongoing initiatives are directed at streamlining the maintenance operations at government repair facilities, and thus potentially lowering the overhead costs that are charged to repairs. The Business Process Reengineering effort, which began in fiscal year 1999, focuses on the repair and modification process at the government repair facilities. Through this effort, the Navy expects to reduce its acquisition costs and overhead charges by adopting new acquisition methods, such as prime vendors, direct vendor deliveries, and electronic commerce. It also expects to reduce its labor costs by automating the requisition process, outsourcing material handling functions, and improving the workload forecasting process. It plans to achieve additional savings from its component repair segment in the form of increased part reliability. Another related initiative is the Manufacturing Resource Planning effort, scheduled for completion by the end of fiscal year 2002. This initiative is designed to cut costs by reducing inventories and shortening lead times on parts requisitions at government repair facilities. It will do this by developing a more efficient and effective process for forecasting the demand for repair parts and more closely aligning this demand with ordering parts with anticipated workloads. One promising initiative—a serial number tracking system for the Navy’s inventory of parts—has the potential for identifying the underlying reasons for price changes. This effort was initiated by the Naval Aviation Maintenance Supply Readiness group, which recognized that the Navy needed to acquire comprehensive information on its entire inventory in order to reduce its overall costs. As a result, in November 1998 it tasked the Naval Supply Systems Command to begin developing a serial number tracking system designed to (1) reduce total inventory ownership costs, (2) reduce secondary inventory levels, and (3) enhance customer satisfaction. This tracking system is designed to collect data on individual parts throughout the Navy’s supply and maintenance systems. The Navy recently completed testing its serial number tracking effort and began installing “smart buttons” (an automatic identification technology) on depot-level repairable parts for the H-53 helicopters. The smart buttons store all of the necessary identification (including part and serial number), mission configuration, repair requirements, and repair history information for that particular part. The Navy plans to install this technology throughout its fleet by fiscal year 2005, at an estimated cost of $58 million appropriated over fiscal years 2002 through 2005. Navy officials believe the tracking system will be helpful in identifying the causes of rising parts costs and decreases in reliability. For example, it could be used to analyze parts usage at maintenance facilities and the effectiveness of maintenance actions. It could also be used to evaluate different maintenance concepts, such as performing complete overhauls versus only repairing parts as necessary. As stated in our April 2002 report, DLA has undertaken a range of efforts to address significant consumable spare parts price increases. It recently completed two price trend analyses, is examining the causes for these increases, and plans to provide detailed explanations and remedies in a report to DOD. In addition, DLA has other efforts underway, including three technology initiatives, aimed at providing better information for determining price reasonableness. As the overall prices of repairable spare parts continue to rise, the Navy is making efforts to control total costs by improving the reliability of spare parts and by reducing its overhead maintenance costs. However, it does not have clear accountability and a planned approach to determine why the prices are changing—increasing or decreasing. Consequently, the Navy lacks the information to identify what management steps it can take to control prices. The deployment of a serial number tracking system, designed to accumulate detailed repair and use information on individual spare parts and their components, represents a vehicle for providing managers with the information they need to identify underlying causes for price increases. In addition, DLA has efforts underway to address underlying causes for price increases. In order to develop the information and action necessary to address the underlying causes for price increases, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Navy to: Develop an overall plan with implementation milestones, resource requirements, and accountability within the Naval Supply Systems Command to identify the underlying reasons for price increases in aviation spare parts. The plan should include, but not be limited to, using the comprehensive data on individual spare parts from the serial number tracking system now under development, as well as lessons learned from DLA’s efforts to address price increases. Utilize information generated from the plan’s initiatives to develop management strategies, which provide assurance that future prices represent a reasonable cost to the customer. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD generally agreed with our principle findings and recommendations. The comments focused on the positive steps the Navy has taken to address the rising costs associated with spare parts within the flying hour program. In particular DOD stressed that ongoing initiatives such as Logistics Engineering Change Proposals are implemented to reduce overall costs to the Navy, not hold them steady. This report was adjusted to reflect this point. However, DOD’s response did not address the need to develop an overall plan with accountability to identify the underlying reasons for price increases in aviation spares. We continue to believe these actions are necessary and, as part of our normal follow-up process, in the future will assess the actions taken and make any additional recommendations that we believe are appropriate. The Department’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix VII. We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees, the Secretaries of Defense and the Navy; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions regarding this report. Key contributors to this report were Richard Payne, John Wren, Daniel Omahen, Nancy Rothlisberger, Jason Jackson, John Van Schaik, and Nancy Benco. To identify the key factors contributing to price increases, we performed an analysis of selected repairable spare parts. Specifically, we chose 453 repairable parts used in the F/A-18, AV-8B, and H-53 aircraft and helicopters and their engines and analyzed the pricing and repair cost trends. These three systems and their engines had been identified, in our November 2000 report, as having experienced higher-than-average price increases. The 453 were the most costly parts, in terms of the amounts that Navy customers spent (the unit price multiplied by the quantity sold), based on the most recent data available at the time of our review. Our review of the 453 parts showed that prices increased primarily because of higher repair costs. We then selected 38 parts that had the largest repair cost increases for further review. We found that 31 of these parts were repaired at government facilities, and we obtained and analyzed their costs during fiscal years 1999 through 2002 as provided by either the Naval Inventory Control Point or the applicable Naval Aviation Depot. After finding that increased repair costs were due to higher material costs used in the repairs, we obtained detailed lists of the orders for these materials. To better understand the general reasons for the cost increases, we analyzed the quantities ordered and the prices paid for them during fiscal years 1998 through 2001. We also discussed the reasons for major material and labor cost increases with officials at the Naval Aviation Depots at Cherry Point, North Carolina, and Jacksonville, Florida. To assess the Navy’s progress in identifying and addressing the underlying causes for increased prices of spare parts, we (1) identified and reviewed prior GAO reports as well as Navy studies and initiatives relating to controlling total costs and (2) evaluated Navy actions to implement the recommendations of our November 2000 report. We obtained studies on the rising costs of repair parts and held discussions with responsible officials at the Center for Naval Analyses, the Naval Center for Cost Analysis, and the Naval Audit Service. We also discussed and obtained information on the status of the Navy’s Aviation Maintenance Supply Readiness Group’s efforts to address the repair part cost and reliability issues with Naval Air Systems Command officials as well as information on the status of corrective actions from the Navy’s Web Site. We also reviewed the Navy’s Logistics Transformation Plan for fiscal year 2000 and the Navy and Marine Corps’ report on the best commercial inventory practices for the third quarter of fiscal year 2001 to identify initiatives aimed at mitigating price increases. We discussed several of these and other initiatives with officials at the Naval Supply Systems Command, Naval Inventory Control Point, Naval Air Systems Command, and Naval Aviation Depots at Jacksonville, Florida, and Cherry Point, North Carolina. In evaluating the Navy’s progress in implementing our recommendations, we relied on information gathered on various studies and initiatives as well as on discussions with officials at Navy headquarters and the Naval Supply Systems Command. We did not independently verify the pricing data provided by the Naval Supply Systems Command or the Naval Aviation Depots. However, recognizing that it was official data, we took several steps to address its quality. Specifically, we tested the completeness of the data, looking for empty or questionable fields. We identified some discrepancies in the data and discussed them with Naval Supply Systems Command and depot officials. Where appropriate, we adjusted the data based on additional information they provided. We performed our review between June 2001 and May 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The 453 most costly repair parts for the 3 aircraft and their engines, which we focused on in our November 2000 report, have continued to experience price increases since fiscal year 1999. Table 2 summarizes the average increase in the repair cost for the parts, the average increase in what the supply system charged its customers, as well as the annual rate of increase for the parts selected for review. Overall, the average increase in the price charged to customers for these parts was 37.2 percent between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2002. Within the population of 453 parts, there were 195 parts that experienced a drop in the customer price between fiscal year 1999 and 2002. Table 3 summarizes the average decrease in the repair cost, the average decrease in what the supply system charged its customers, and the annual rate of decrease for the parts. The average decrease in price for these 195 parts was about 35 percent. Almost 60 percent, 258 of the 453 parts experienced an increase in price between fiscal year 1999 and 2002. Table 4 summarizes the average increase in the repair cost, the average in what the supply system charged its customers, and the annual rate of increase for these parts. Price increases for these 258 parts averaged 91.5 percent. Appendix V: Reported Repair Cost Increases for 31 Parts FY99 material cost ($) FY99 government repair cost ($) FY02 material cost($) FY02 government repair cost ($) Change in government repair (%) Change in material (%) FY99 material cost ($) FY99 government repair cost ($) FY02 material cost($) FY02 government repair cost ($) Change in material (%) Change in government repair (%) The Navy’s efforts to implement the recommendations from our November 2000 report on the rising prices of aviation depot-level repairable parts have been mixed. The report contained three recommendations: (1) the Secretary of Defense ensure that the Navy follow through on the results of its planned studies by identifying and implementing solutions to reduce and stabilize prices and surcharge rates, (2) the Secretary of Defense direct the Navy to allocate condemnation costs to the specific parts or groups of parts incurring the costs, and (3) the Secretary of Defense report to the Congress on the Navy’s progress in addressing these recommendations. The Navy has only partially implemented our first recommendation. The Navy has undertaken some cost controlling measures aimed at improving reliability and is implementing a serial number tracking program to improve inventory management, as discussed above. The Navy has implemented the second recommendation by adjusting its pricing practice such that condemnation costs are being allocated to specific groups of repairable parts. Beginning in fiscal year 1999, the Navy started allocating certain costs to the parts that incur those costs. Initially, transportation costs were allocated using this approach. The Navy began allocating condemnation and obsolescence costs in this manner in fiscal year 2000. At the same time, the Navy instituted a tiered pricing strategy to allocate general overhead costs and specific, identifiable costs based on the level of management required. These efforts have resulted in a better match of expenses with specific parts. In response to our third recommendation, the Navy has only partially reported the results of its efforts to implement the first two recommendations to the Congress. In its fiscal year 2003 budget submission, the Navy reported its efforts to allocate condemnation costs, as well as transportation and obsolescence costs, to specific groups of parts. In addition, the Navy reported it was taking action to limit the general overhead rate to 30 percent or less. However, the Navy did not report any specific actions to reduce and stabilize prices. | Since fiscal year 1999, the Navy's budget for repairing spare parts to support its aviation weapons systems has increased by about 50 percent, from $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion. Some military commands have asserted that the escalating cost of these parts has adversely impacted the funds available for the readiness of military forces. Overall, the prices for Navy repairable spare parts continue to climb for the three aircraft and their engines that GAO focused on in its November 2000 report. GAO's assessment of selected parts being repaired showed that while nearly 45 percent of the parts decreased in price, about 55 percent increased an average of 91.5 percent between fiscal year 1999 and 2002. The price increases were primarily due to the dramatically higher costs of the materials needed to repair spare parts, although other factors, such as overhead fees and labor rates, contributed. However, GAO could not determine the underlying causes for the rising material costs because the Navy's database lacked key information on each repair. The Navy's progress in developing an overall plan to identify and address the reasons for higher spare parts prices has been limited. It has not yet identified and implemented ways to reduce and stabilize prices. Further, the Navy has undertaken several initiatives, but most of these efforts focused on improving the reliability or the maintenance processes for repairing spare parts rather than on identifying why prices continue to rise. One initiative, the establishment of an automated serial number tracking system for spare parts, however, has potential for providing the specific information needed to determine why the spare parts prices are increasing and develop a strategy for stabilizing them. In addition, the Navy may learn from the Defense Logistics Agency's efforts to address causes for price increases--thereby allowing the Navy to better apply its resources supporting the readiness of the forces. |
Adding cinnamon to your diet can cool your body by up to two degrees, according to new research.
And the spice may also contribute to a general improvement in overall health.
The research has been published in the journal, Scientific Reports.
Project leader Distinguished Professor Kourosh Kalantar-zadeh, from RMIT University's School of Engineering in Melbourne, Australia, said the results of the study, which used pigs, seemed to show that cinnamon maintained the integrity of the stomach wall.
"When pigs feed at room temperature, carbon dioxide (CO2) gas increases in their stomach.
"Cinnamon in their food reduces this gas by decreasing the secretion of gastric acid and pepsin from the stomach walls, which in turn cools the pigs' stomachs during digestion.
"When the pigs are hot, they hyperventilate, which reduces CO2 production. With cinnamon treatment, CO2 decreases even further.
"This not only cools the pigs but leads to a significant improvement in their overall health."
Fellow researcher Dr Jian Zhen Ou said: "Altogether cinnamon cooled the stomach by up to 2C.
"No wonder cinnamon is so popular in warm regions as taking it makes people feel better and gives them a feeling of cooling down."
The research is part of a bigger study at RMIT into gut health using swallowable gas sensor capsules or smart pills, developed at the University.
Kalantar-zadeh said gut gases were the by-product of digestion and could provide valuable insights into the functioning and health of the gut.
"Our experiments with pigs and cinnamon show how swallowable gas sensor capsules can help provide new physiological information that will improve our understanding of diet or medicine.
"They are a highly reliable device for monitoring and diagnosing gastrointestinal disorders. They will revolutionise food science as we know it."
Scientists at the University of Melbourne and Monash University also contributed to the paper, entitled "Potential of in vivo real-time gastric gas profiling: a pilot evaluation of heat-stress and modulating dietary cinnamon effect in an animal model".
### ||||| The purposes of this pilot study are threefold: to gain insights into the physiological alterations that occur under heat-stress conditions; to better define the effects of cinnamon on those physiological changes; and more importantly, to determine the contribution of the new information from continuous monitoring of CO 2 concentrations and temperature in the stomach to understanding the physiological processes occurring. The gastric CO 2 gas measurements are achieved via a modified version of the gas sensor capsule that, by virtue of changing its density, is immobilised in the pigs’ stomach during the experiment. Swine are chosen as test subjects due to the similarity of their gastrointestinal tract to that of humans, and to the fact that swine are very susceptible to heat-stress that can potentially make the observations more clear28,38,39. Because of their non-functional sweat glands, pigs rely on panting (hyperventilation) as the primary evaporative heat loss mechanism when under heat-stress, which significantly increases respiration rate but causes further redistribution of the gas content in the blood stream and possibly the gastrointestinal tract40. In the present study, observations are limited to the stomach. As the gut is made of different organs that are diverse in their functionalities and physiochemical environments, the investigation of individual organs is essential. The stomach as the area in which significant digestive activities are chemical and biochemical is the first important organ that can be potentially influenced by the ameliorating effect of cinnamon. The stomach is highly sensitive to heat-stress as the health of gastric mucosa is closely related to the gastric mucosal blood flow41, and thus redistribution of blood flow driven by heat-stress may potentiate gastric injury via, for example, ulcerogenic agents42.
Interpretation of the physiological changes that occurred gives insights into the possible therapeutic benefits of diet supplementation. The trend of the changes in CO 2 defined by the gastric gas profiler is similar to that obtained from measurements in a respiration chamber43,44, indicating that the gastric CO 2 production is mainly attributable to the chemical reactions in the acidic environment of the stomach45. This is also likely to be accompanied by products of aerobic metabolism of amino acids obtained from protein digestion, which are then chemically decarboxylated into CO 2 gas46. The concomitant rise in gastric temperature is likely to be attributed to metabolic heat generation from the chemical reaction as a result of the protein digestion47. The marked reduction in CO 2 concentration occurring after the second feeding of the day in the thermoneutral cinnamon-treated subject could possibly be related to a chemical reaction of cinnamon in the stomach.
It has been extensively reported in studies both in vivo and in vitro that cinnamon in its extracted form inhibits gastric acid and pepsin secretion33,48. In the present study, this is confirmed by the rise in gastric pH and the reduction of pepsin seen in the Raman spectrum. Such a reduction of gastric acid and pepsin secretion eventually leads to a lowered gastric CO 2 and metabolic heat production, because gastric CO 2 is mainly produced from the chemical reaction of food in an acidic environment together with the decarboxylation of amino acids upon protein digestion45,46. These are all related to the concentrations of both gastric acid and pepsin.
During heat-stress, the CO 2 gas profile looks more like that seen with cinnamon treatment under thermoneutral conditions for the same reason that gastric acid and pepsin secretion falls. Gastric CO 2 may also be influenced by hyperventilation and subsequent increases CO 2 loss from the lungs and greater uptake of gastric CO 2 by the circulation40. The plateauing of the skin temperature in the early afternoon is presumably related to the dominant effect of evaporative heat loss by hyperventilation.
The observation that dietary supplementation with cinnamon appeared to reduce gastric CO 2 production under heat-stress conditions is less easily explained. The increase in gastric acid and pepsin secretion (and presumably metabolic production of CO 2 ) relative to those in the heat-stress control pig and relatively reduced respiratory rate associated with heat-stress will tend to increase gastric CO 2 content. However, cinnamon increases gastric mucosal blood flow32,49, and this may permit greater CO 2 exchange. This is supported by the attenuated rise in gastric temperature that might reflect enhanced radiant heat loss from the mucosa. Skin blood flow might also increase with additional radiant heat loss as suggested by the reduced skin temperature in the cinnamon-treated heat-stress pig. Interestingly, rectal temperature is not reduced and this may indicate rectal mucosal blood flow to be unaffected by cinnamon, an untested but feasible hypothesis.
Hence, this pilot study has demonstrated the potential utility of the real-time gastric gas profiler to enhance understanding of the physiological processes that occur in a model of a gastric disorder and of the mechanisms by which a potential therapeutic agent acts. Thus, for the heat-stress effect, the gastric CO 2 level is found to be suppressed due to the combination of reduction of gastric acid and pepsin secretion as well as hyperventilation, providing a novel marker of the physiological disturbances that enhances information from more traditional physiological and biochemical measurements. The addition of cinnamon into the diet inhibits both the gastric acid and pepsin secretion, resulting in a significant decline in the gastric CO 2 gas level and alters CO 2 gas pattern. When under heat-stress, partial amelioration of disorders signified by physiological indices is observed. The CO 2 gas pattern corresponding to the second feeding of the day is greatly altered as the gastric CO 2 gas is rapidly depleted during that period, which can be ascribed to the possible enhanced gastric mucosal blood flow in the presence of cinnamon. In addition, the relatively normal gastric acid and pepsin secretion may reflect the potential antioxidant activity of cinnamon against the intestinal mucosal injury induced by tissue hypoxia32,50. Altogether, it is suggested that cinnamon may play an important role in gastric cytoprotection and maintenance of homeostasis in gastric secretion and digestive functionalities.
The strong similarity and repeatability shown when comparing the gastric gas profiles obtained from the high-density profilers and normal-density gas sensor capsules indicates that the profiles obtained using the transient non-invasive capsules are precise. This suggests that this technology can be reliably used for the interpretation of the gastric gas profiles.
In conclusion, this gastric gas profiler has provided novel, precise and repeatable real-time assessment of gastrointestinal physiological processes that enhance our understanding of a representative gastric disorder induced by heat-stress and the effect of a cinnamon supplement as a dietary remedial model. Since such emerging gas sensor capsule technology can readily be designed to target other parts of the gastrointestinal tract and/or other gas molecules, it presents as a novel medical tool that is capable of providing unique information (particularly via the gas level, pattern and production kinetics) about disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. Such information may permit new insights that will underpin future research into pathogenesis of gastrointestinal disorders, dietary and drug effects, and clinical diagnostic applications. ||||| Sprinkling some cinnamon on your food might lower the temperature in your stomach, a new study conducted in animals suggests.
The findings showed that pigs that ate cinnamon with their food had stomach temperatures that were up to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) lower than pigs that ate regular food. The researchers have completed a similar study in humans, and found a similar effect, they said.
This stomach-cooling effect appears to be linked with reduced levels of stomach acid and the digestive enzyme pepsin, the researchers said. Together, these effects may help to enhance the blood flow around the stomach walls, which may lead to improved digestion and better gut health, although more research is needed to show whether this is true, the researchers said.
The results of that human trial have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but the findings show that cinnamon also reduces the digestion temperature in the stomach in humans, study co-author Kourosh Kalantar-zadeh, a professor of engineering at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, told Live Science. [Top 10 Cancer-Fighting Foods]
In the study conducted in pigs, the researchers placed 12 pigs into four groups. One group was fed food supplemented with 5 grams (0.2 ounces) of cinnamon per day, and lived in an environment kept at room temperature, 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius). Another group was fed food without the addition of cinnamon, and was also kept at room temperature.
The third group was fed food supplemented with 5 grams of cinnamon per day, but lived in an environment kept at 95 F (35 C) from 9 a.m. to 5 a.m., and then at 82 F (28 C) for the remaining 24-hour period. The fourth group was fed food without cinnamon and housed under the same temperatures as the third group.
During the two-day experiment, all of the pigs were fed twice a day: at 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., according to the study, published Sept. 16 in the journal Scientific Reports.
Previous research suggested that cinnamon may have beneficial effects for gut health, according to the study. The researchers used the higher temperatures for some pigs in the study to raise the temperatures in the animals' guts, and thus mimic the conditions that typically occur in people who have a gut disorder, they said.
The researchers gave the pigs capsules to swallow, which contained sensors that were designed to measure the temperature and the levels of certain gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the pigs' stomachs. The measurements of such gases can be used to assess how healthy the gut is, the researchers said.
The researchers found that in the stomachs of the pigs that lived at room temperature and were given food without cinnamon, carbon dioxide levels in the gut increased by about 21 percent in the 3 to 4 hours after the first feeding, and by 8 percent after the second feeding.
In comparison, in the pigs fed food supplemented with cinnamon, these levels increased by just 13 percent after the first feeding and by 6 percent after the second feeding, the researchers found.
It also turned out that the temperatures in the stomachs of the pigs fed cinnamon were up to 3.6 degrees cooler, on average, than the stomachs of the pigs in the control group. [5 Ways Gut Bacteria Affect Your Health]
The researchers observed similar patterns of differences in the levels of carbon dioxide and temperature among the pigs that were housed under the higher temperatures and fed the two different diets, they said.
Kalantar-zadeh said that, according to his calculations, consuming 1 gram of cinnamon a day should show the same effect on the human stomach. However, he cautioned that, according to the U.S. Department of Health, people can safely eat up to 6 grams of cinnamon daily for 6 weeks or less, but larger doses consumed over longer periods of time may be toxic.
Originally published on Live Science. ||||| The popular doughnut spice has been proven to cool down the stomach.
Cinnamon has dusted doughnuts and spiced curries for centuries and new research shows its effect doesn't end with the taste buds.
The spice can cool your body by up to two degrees, a RMIT University study into gut health found.
The cinnamon results, published in journal Scientific Reports, were initially discovered in pigs, and RMIT University project leader Kourosh Kalantar-zadeh told The Huffington Post Australia what's good for pigs tends to be good for us.
Cinnamon can cool the body.
"Pigs have one of the most similar gut structures to humans, their size can be quite comparable and their microbial community in their body is not very far off us as well," Kalantar-zadeh said.
He said cinnamon cooled pig's stomachs by two degrees but also improved overall health.
"Cinnamon protected the walls of the stomach and small intestines, basically protecting the integrity of the gut."
As for us humans, he said cinnamon could do no harm.
"Our ancestors have been saying say cinnamon is good for health for a long time," Kalantar-zadeh said.
"Taking it at a moderate level will be beneficial to the body for sure, and it cools the stomach down so it's perfect in summer." | A possible unexpected benefit of cinnamon: A study in Scientific Reports suggests it can lower stomach temperature by up to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, Live Science reports. While the study used pigs, researchers say the same should hold true for humans. Eating cinnamon with meals seemed to lowered carbon dioxide levels in the pigs' stomachs after meals, which made their bodies cooler. What's more, "cinnamon protected the walls of the stomach and small intestines, basically protecting the integrity of the gut," researcher Kourosh Kalantar-zadeh tells the Huffington Post. And pigs that ate cinnamon saw a "significant improvement in their overall health," according to a press release. Researchers believe cinnamon lowers the levels of stomach acid and pepsin in the gut, thereby helping blood flow in the stomach's walls, which in turn may improve digestion and gut health. Of course, more research is needed to see if any of that is true. Regardless, Kalantar-zadeh tells Live Science that 1 gram of cinnamon a day should produce health benefits in humans. "Our ancestors have been saying cinnamon is good for health for a long time," he tells HuffPo. But keep in mind that the US Department of Health says eating 6 grams of cinnamon or more a day for six weeks or longer can be toxic. (Cinnamon might make us better learners.) |
Return to Transcripts main page
STATE OF THE UNION
Trump Threatens to Close Borders; Bombshell Climate Change Report Released; Interview With Iowa Senator Joni Ernst; Interview With California Congressman Adam Schiff; Trump, Chief Justice Spar Over Judicial Independence; GOP Senator In Mississippi Under Fire For Confederate Ties; White House Releases Dire Climate Report Over Holiday Weekend; Obama Praises Beto O'Rourke As 2020 Campaign Heats Up; Interview With House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Aired 9-10a ET
Aired November 25, 2018 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:13]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Escalating threats. President Trump trying anything he can to stem immigration at the border.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will close entry into the country.
BASH: And threatening a government shutdown over the wall. How will Congress react? We will ask Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst next.
Plus: gearing up -- the Mueller probe closing in on another guilty plea, as one of its first targets is headed toward prison. What are the next steps in the investigation?
TRUMP: The written answers to the witch-hunt that's been going on forever, they have been finished.
BASH: We will talk to a man who will soon lead investigations of the president, Congressman Adam Schiff.
And climate crisis -- deadly fires, floods and disease spreading across the U.S., causing crippling economics. These dire warnings put out by the Trump administration on a holiday weekend. Is anybody listening?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASH: Good morning. I'm Dana Bash, in for Jake Tapper in Washington, where the state of our union is on edge.
President Trump returns to Washington today, after a tumultuous holiday week, determined to push his priorities through Congress before Democrats take control of the House and make his life much more difficult.
First on the president's wish list, stemming the tide of immigration at the border. The president tweeted just last night that migrants seeking asylum
will stay in Mexico while their claims make their way through U.S. courts. That would amount to a massive overhaul in U.S. policy, but a leader in Mexico's incoming government is now denying reports of a deal.
Joining me now, Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, the newly elected member of the Republican leadership who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Senator, thank you so much for joining me this morning.
SEN. JONI ERNST (R), IOWA: Oh, it's great to be with you. Thank you.
BASH: Thank you.
I want to get right to what the president is talking about with regard to the southern border. He is saying that -- threatening, at least, that it should be closed, the southern border with Mexico, for any reason it becomes necessary.
Is it good to close the border?
ERNST: We would prefer that we keep it open, so let's work really hard to make sure we're addressing the asylum seekers before they actually come over the border.
I think that's the intent of the president, is to divert any issues before they actually happen. So, of course we don't want to see the border closed. But you know what? Safety of our nation comes first.
BASH: So, do you think he's just -- it's an idle threat in order to get Mexico to deal and to potentially allow asylum seekers to be in Mexico, as apparently there are private discussions about?
ERNST: I certainly think the president sees results any time that he does bring up an issue, and he does lay down certain reasons why he's doing what he's doing.
And we are seeing results. We have seen Mexico, their government is now -- they have said that they will keep those asylum seekers in Mexico until they can be sorted out. So I think that we are seeing results. Let's try and divert anything before we actually do have to act on the president's threats.
BASH: The president has also threatened to shut down the government on next Friday's funding deadline if Congress doesn't pass money to fund his border wall.
Would you support shutting down the government if the president doesn't get that money for the wall?
ERNST: I do not want to see the government shut down. Again, if we can avoid that situation, we absolutely need to do that.
And I know that Leader McConnell is working very hard to make sure we get funding in this lame-duck session. So, again, I hope that we can avoid shutting down the government. We have a lot of departments that do a lot of good for our citizens, so we need to make sure we're funding them properly for Congress, but also realizing the goal of the president, and that is to fund the border wall.
BASH: If it comes down to it and the Friday deadline is here and there is no agreement to give the president that border wall funding, do you think the president, you know, would be right in saying, OK, the government should be shut down, even though it is certainly dire for the agencies you talked about?
ERNST: I would -- well, I would rather that he didn't.
Again, we, as Congress, need to work really hard, one, to make sure that we are funding our government. That is our job as Congress, is to fund the government.
BASH: It is.
ERNST: But we also understand that our constituents have stated quite clearly that they want to see our border protected.
The president has been quite clear for a number of years. We need to do our best as well in Congress to make sure that we are protecting our nation and following up on the president's promises.
[09:05:02]
BASH: I want to ask you about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
The president is standing by Saudi Arabia, even though his own CIA has assessed that the Saudi crown prince at least knew about the murder. I talked to some of your Republican Senate colleagues this weekend who say that they are going to be demanding congressional action.
Will you?
ERNST: I do think we need to look into this further, and we need to understand where the investigations are leading us.
And I'm anxious to hear from a number of our intelligence agencies on this. Now, Saudi Arabia is a great strategic partner for us. It is an important country when it comes to the Middle Eastern region. We know that. They -- they are a great projection platform for us.
We understand that. However, human rights, we also are a very strong nation when it comes to human rights, when it comes to the rule of law. And if there are indicators that the prince was involved in this murder, then we need to absolutely consider further action.
So I would tend to be with my colleagues on this issue, understanding Saudi Arabia, great strategic importance to us. However, we are also a country that believes in human rights.
BASH: Does it concern you that the president seems to be giving the Saudis a pass? ERNST: I wouldn't say he is necessarily giving them a pass, again,
because they are such an important ally in that region.
However, I think at such a time when it becomes necessary, the president also needs to speak directly to the Saudis and say, enough is enough. And if there are indicators coming from those intelligence agencies, he also needs to be involved in some sort of action.
BASH: I want to ask you about something that came out on Friday. It's a new Trump administration report on climate change.
And it paints a really dire future for American agriculture, especially states like yours in Iowa. Higher temperatures, drought and flooding would devastate corn and soy bean production. And this report, which was put out by 13 federal agencies, says climate change could shrink the U.S. economy by 10 percent over the next several decades.
Should you and your fellow senators take action to try to stem climate change?
ERNST: Well, we know that our climate is changing. Our climate always changes. And we see those ebb and flows through time. American agriculture has faced very difficult situations in decades past as well.
I think there are a number of things that we can do. And Iowa certainly is stepping up and is a leader on making sure that we are keeping our air, our water, and our soil healthy. And we lead in things like solar energy and wind energy.
So, that's Iowa setting the standard.
BASH: Is there anything that the Senate should do?
ERNST: And I don't -- I think any -- any time that we are putting regulation out, we need to always consider impact to American industry and jobs.
We want to make sure that it makes sense going forward. There is a balance that can -- can be struck there. And, again, in Iowa, as a state, we have set that standard. And it hasn't been by mandating. It has been by incentivizing.
So, we do have a number of wind energy farms. And Iowa right now draws about 40 percent of its electric from wind energy, great renewable source. We have biofuels and so forth. So, we're setting the standard. I think the rest of the states can do the same.
BASH: Another topic I know you're interested in, which is criminal justice reform.
You support the bipartisan legislation that would lighten some prison sentences for nonviolent drug crimes. It doesn't look like your Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, is planning to bring this up during the lame-duck session. Should he? ERNST: I would love to see this come forward. There are a number of
organizations that have provided some feedback.
And I certainly am looking to look at any textual changes that might occur to the bill. I think we need to involve as many voices as possible. I would love to see the bill come up, though.
One, we need to reduce recidivism in those that are exiting the prison system. And we need to really look at fairness in sentencing for federal crimes. We see an ever-increasing number of women, especially mothers, that are serving time in federal prison. And what does that do to the rest of the family structure?
It does create this cycle. So, I am excited about the opportunity to see the First Step Act move forward through the Senate. I would love to see more support. If there's a way that we can accomplish that and get it done in the lame-duck, that's great. If not, we will drive on in the new Congress.
BASH: You mentioned women.
When the Congress comes back in January, you will be the first woman in the Republican Senate leadership in a decade. At this point -- I want to put numbers on the screen, because they're really striking. A record-breaking 125 women will serve in Congress come January.
[09:10:06]
Only 19, only 19 are Republicans. Why is the party at such a disadvantage with women?
ERNST: Well, I do think that we are doing great work for women.
We need to do a better job at communicating why we are the choice for women and encouraging women to run for elected office. Of course, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is better for our families. We see more of them keeping that income in their own pockets.
We see a lot of deregulation and companies that are able to expand and provide opportunities for women. We need to be better about communicating all of the great things that we are doing, and then encourage those women to run for elected office.
BASH: Senator Joni Ernst, thank you so much for joining me. Appreciate it.
ERNST: Thank you. A pleasure. Thank you.
BASH: And Democrats just announced another investigation into President Trump.
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, is here to talk about his plans.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BASH: Welcome back to State of the Union.
[09:15:00]
House Democrats' to-do list just got longer.
House Democrats want to know what is behind President Trump's reluctance to call out Saudi Arabia's crown prince after the gruesome murder and dismemberment of a U.S.-based journalist.
A man who plans to lead that investigation joins me now, Congressman Adam Schiff.
Thank you so much for being here.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you.
BASH: Now, one of the things that you want to probe is the president's relationship with Saudi Arabia.
You told "The Washington Post" you have an idea, that the president is going easy on Saudi Arabia because of his business interests, and that you want to look into that. Do you have any evidence to support that, going in?
SCHIFF: Look, the president is not being honest with the country about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
I think, in part, he feels that, by saying that we don't know or that the world is a dangerous place or everybody does it, he thinks it makes him look strong. It actually makes him look weak. It means that our allies don't respect us, our enemies don't fear us.
What is driving this? I don't know, whether this is simply an affinity that he has for autocrats -- he seems to choose them repeatedly over his own intelligence agencies -- or whether there's a financial motivation, that is, his own personal finances.
We know, of course, he has openly bragged about how many millions he makes from Saudi Arabia. Is his personal financial interests driving U.S. policy in the Gulf? Is it driving us policy vis-a-vis the Russians? We don't know, but it would be irresponsible not to find out.
BASH: And how far are you going to dig on that?
SCHIFF: Well, this will not be the work alone of the Intelligence Committee. It will be our responsibility to make sure that we're getting good intelligence on, not just the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, but also Saudi policy vis-a-vis Qatar, in Yemen, and that the Congress is informed, that we can make good policy decisions, that we can truth-tell if the president is misrepresenting the matter to the American people, so that we're -- we have a foreign policy driven that is by American interests, not by some interest of the president. So, that will be our responsibility. I think others will also have
the responsibility of looking at, are there financial entanglements with the Gulf? Are there financial inducements that the president has not to want to cross the Saudis? That cannot be allowed to drive U.S. policy.
BASH: Specifically on the -- on the murder of Khashoggi, the president says the CIA has not reached a final conclusion on whether the Saudi crown prince at least knew about it.
The top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jack Reed, says flatly the president is lying about that. Do you know? Have you seen the CIA assessment? And is the president lying?
SCHIFF: I have been briefed by the CIA. And while I cannot discuss the contents of the briefing in any way, I can say that I think the president is being dishonest with the American people.
I don't know why. It's certainly not atypical. Frankly, the president has been dishonest with the country about a great many things. But I think what is most important here is, we need to speak up for our Democratic values.
The president -- you know, it's -- it would be one thing if the president were leveling with the American people and saying, OK, this is what happened, this is what we know, this is what took place, but, nonetheless, we need to maintain a relationship with the kingdom.
But that's not what he's doing. And I just think that it causes our standing in the world to plummet. It telegraphs to despots around the world they can murder people with impunity, and that this president will have his -- their back, as long as they praise him, as long as they do business with him, potentially.
And that cannot be the guiding principle behind our foreign policy.
BASH: There's a report out this week that indicates your committee -- you will be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee in January -- is staffing up on money laundering and forensic accounting experts.
Is that true? And, if so, why?
SCHIFF: I don't want to talk about our staffing.
But it is certainly true that one of the issues that the Republicans would not allow us to investigate when they were running the committee -- and I don't think Congress has looked into this at all, and I don't know that Bob Mueller has -- is whether the Russians have been laundering money through the president's businesses, and this is the financial hold that the Russians may have.
It would certainly explain the otherwise bewildering conduct of the president in Helsinki, many of the president's comments, pro-Putin comments. It would explain why his sons have said at various times they don't need money from U.S. banks, they get all the money they need from Russia or a disproportionate of their assets come from Russia.
Is this, again, the -- the hidden hand of American financial policy, a Russian financial hand? We do need to get an answer to that and be able to tell the American people, yes, it's true, or, no, it's not. The American deserve to know that the president has their interests in mind, not his pecuniary interests.
[09:20:03]
BASH: You mentioned the Mueller investigation.
You have said that the acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, was -- quote -- "chosen for the purpose of interfering with the Mueller investigation."
Obviously, Whitaker had made some pretty harsh comments about the investigation in the past. But now that he is in the role, have you actually seen him take any concrete steps to impede the probe?
SCHIFF: Well, the fact of the matter is, he's not telegraphing what he's doing. He's not telling us. He's not telling anyone, at least in Congress.
BASH: But you probably -- do you think you would have heard, that there would have been some crying foul from within Justice?
SCHIFF: I don't know that we would hear.
And I don't know what steps he has taken, whether he is merely getting briefed now and deliberating on whether he will allow Mueller to subpoena the president, or whether he will allow Mueller to look into this issue, or whether he's giving Mueller a time certain when Mueller needs to wrap up his investigation. We simply don't know.
But I will tell you this, Dana. We're going to find out. The American people need to know whether this president is obstructing justice, whether he has obstructed justice in the past, whether his appointment of Whitaker was designed to obstruct justice, whether it's having the effect of obstructing justice, whether there was some kind of a discussion, deal, bargain, arrangement, understanding.
BASH: How are you going to find that out?
SCHIFF: Well, we are going to bring Whitaker before the Congress, assuming he's still in his position at the time when Democrats take over. We may bring him in whether he's in that position or not to find out the answers to these questions.
One of the key decisions that the attorney general will make, whoever is in that role, is, when Bob Mueller puts together a report on, among other things, obstruction of justice, will that report be shared with the American people? Will it be shared with Congress?
The American people need to know, they deserve to know whether their president is interfering with the impartial administration of justice. So, we will do everything necessary to find out. BASH: Before I let you go, I want to ask you about Nancy Pelosi.
Nine more of your fellow Democrats in the House are now threatening to withhold their support for her to be speaker of the House once again. That's on top of 16 Democrats who signed a letter on Monday.
I know you support her, but is there any doubt in your mind that she will have the votes, not just among Democrats, but obviously, most importantly, when it comes to a vote on the House floor in January?
SCHIFF: I'm very confident she is going to have the votes that she needs, and, even more, that she is the right person for the job right now.
We don't want to go into this very challenging time, where everything is on the line for the country, where the rule of law is on the line, where people's health care is on the line, without the best tactician, without the best organizer to keep our caucus together.
That is going to be a more challenging task than ever before, because we have a more diverse caucus than ever before. And if there were someone else that had that same package or talents, I would say, support them.
But no one, I think, is better qualified than she is right now. There's no one I want to see more in that role. And I'm confident, at the end of the day, she has the votes to do it.
BASH: Congressman Adam Schiff, thank you so much for joining me this morning.
SCHIFF: Thank you.
BASH: Appreciate it.
And the president is heading back out on the campaign trail in Mississippi tomorrow, as new warning signs emerge for his own 2020 reelection bid -- that coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:28:07]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Hopefully, we have shone some light on the Ninth Circuit.
I know that Chief Justice Roberts, John Roberts, has been speaking a little bit about it. And I think we have a lot of respect for him. I like him and I respect him, but I think we have to use some common sense. This Ninth -- Ninth Circuit, everybody knows it. It's totally out of control.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: President Trump turning his ire on the judiciary branch, feuding with Chief Justice John Roberts after he defended the Ninth Circuit from Trump's attacks.
Let's discuss. Bill Kristol, your thoughts?
BILL KRISTOL, EDITOR, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": I think what the chief justice said was appropriate.
I think, if you're chief justice, you want to say, let's treat the courts with dignity. We know that there's partisanship in the appointment of judges and sometimes in their judging, but we need to also preserve the principle that the rule of law stands above partisanship.
And we shouldn't have a president -- it's one thing for candidates to talk about who they're going to appoint. We shouldn't have a president of the United States just treat the courts as if they're mere political entities.
RICK SANTORUM, CNN COMMENTATOR: Yes, well, I wish that were true, but the courts have become mere political entities.
I mean, the -- the reality is, Donald Trump is reflecting what at least a large swathe of the Republican Party believes. And this is one of the reasons Trump, even though he does say outrageous things, resonates with -- with Republicans, is because we have seen the courts hijack our democracy and take over and -- and make decisions that were supposed to be left to the people to make.
And -- and it's been predominantly left-wing judges. And -- and, so when the president goes out and points to the Ninth Circuit, which repeatedly ignores the Constitution and -- and -- and imposes liberal policies, the fact that the chief justice defended it just has people scratching their head and say, yes, you know, George Bush messed up again with -- with John Roberts.
Here he is taking a position that is -- that is clearly out of step with the truth with respect to how judges adjudicate...
(CROSSTALK)
[09:30:06]
BASH: You know, what was so unusual about this was that Roberts weighed in. But it is not unprecedented for a president to go after the Supreme Court, criticize the Supreme Court. Your former boss, President Obama, did it in a very public forum.
SANTORUM: Right in front of the state of the union.
BASH: In the State of the Union, right in front of the whole Supreme Court about Citizens United.
JEN PSAKI, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's true. Look, presidents -- President Obama did. I think he did it with a different style than President Trump. They sent a message to their supporters and people in the country about what their views are in Supreme Court decisions. The difference here I think is that President Trump has been attacking institutions like the courts for the entire time he has been president. And there is a high probability, higher than any recent president, that there could be a case related to President Trump in front of the Supreme Court, if he's subpoenaed and he doesn't come to testify.
You know, so there are -- there's a real personal aspect here that is different from past presidents. I will say that the reason that I think conservatives don't like John Roberts is because of how he voted on the Affordable Care Act.
SANTORUM: True.
PSAKI: And we all know that is the case. There are strong views about courts. There's history there.
John Roberts did what he did, I think, what's important, because he's standing up for the courts. I'm not a John Roberts -- obviously he's a conservative judge but what he did was important -- I think historically important, too.
SYMONE SANDERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I agree with Jen. Look, I think, Donald Trump has been on a rampage -- and I just want to say as of late but I think from the moment he came down that escalator and announced he was running for president. And it's no secret that he has not -- I don't think he's a fan of any institution that does not sit lock and step where he is.
And so, look, if Chief Justice John Roberts was saying everything that Donald Trump was saying and underscoring everything that the president was saying, I don't think he would have an issue. So his only issue here is that he can't direct the courts to do what he would like them to do. I, for one, am grateful.
BILL KRISTOL, EDITOR, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": But President Obama criticized a Supreme Court decision. Presidents are entitled to that.
PSAKI: Sure. Yes, the difference.
KRISTOL: They can (INAUDIBLE). That is different from saying there are Obama judges and Bush judges, there are Mexican judges. That was his attack during the campaign. And that is a kind of underwriting, I think, of the notion that these judges once they're on the court criticize them if you don't like their decisions but don't criticize them because of who appointed them.
BASH: I want to look ahead to what's going to happen this coming week -- Mississippi there is a run-off for the remaining open Senate seat. The president is traveling down there to campaign for the Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith, who is facing maybe a stiffer challenge that a Republican should in the state of Mississippi from Democrat Mike Espy.
She has had some controversy including a picture I want to put up from 2014. Cindy Hyde-Smith, wearing a confederate hat, carrying a rifle. Problem? SANTORUM: Yes. Look, that's not a good -- that's not a good picture in the world today. And, you know, having said -- having gone through this with Trent Lott many years ago with the whole Strom Thurmond thing, I mean, these issues you have the old south and people from the old south, and you can go back and look at pictures from long ago or, in this case, not that long ago and say, well, you know, traditions have changed and we can't -- we have no -- zero tolerance for anybody tying anything to the old south.
I think that's unhealthy. I think that's not -- it's ahistorical. And to criticize someone for doing that, of something that happened years ago -- look, you look at the person, look at what their policies are, look at the totality of who the person is and Cynthia -- Cindy Hyde-Smith is mainstream Republican. She not some -- she was a Democrat until a few years ago.
She's not some right-wing lunatic. She's someone who is very much traditional Mississippi and I know some people up here in the northeast don't like that but that's who she is.
PSAKI: You know, I think -- I don't know that she is what Republicans want to be representing them. It's not just that photo.
She went to a segregationist high school. She sent her daughter to a segregationist high school, so when she was an adult she made that decision for her daughter not to be in a school with integrated student body.
These are realities that -- those are racist tendencies. I think we should call it what it is. The reality is Mississippi is a deep red state, I think we all know that.
Mike Espy is a moderate. He would have to be to be a nominee there. And he is trying to walk a very difficult tightrope walk here.
He has not come out and strongly criticized her. Not sure that's going to be super helpful for him in turning out a huge African- American vote. And he has to win enough of the white vote that he can combine the two.
So it's a hard road for him but the reality is that do Republicans want her to be representing them in the Senate? I would say that's tough --
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: Mike Espy is a moderate. He's also an African-American.
SANDERS: He is also an African-American. You know, my father is from Mississippi and so when you talk about the old south I think Mike Espy is representative of Mississippi. He -- so the idea that someone like Mike Espy can't win this race, I want to remind folks that this got to a run-off because it was so close.
[09:35:08]
The current sitting senator could not get to the number of votes she needed to to win right out. So that's why we're --
BASH: There were a number of candidates.
SANDERS: A number of candidates. But, I mean, look --
SANTORUM: Including a major -- including a major conservative Republican who ran a couple of years ago.
SANDERS: She couldn't win it straight out. Now we're in a run-off. I mean, those are the facts here.
So, look, I think Mike Espy did. He had a chance at the debate that they had last week to address the senator's comments. And what he said was, look everyone know what she -- knows what she said. She knows what she meant and he moved on to talk about the issues.
I think he can win this. It's going to be a tough road but they've been knocking on doors. A lot of folks have -- not just Donald Trump but a lot of folks on the Democratic side of the aisle have descended on Mississippi. And, I think, we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
BASH: Should Republicans be worried, though? About winning the seat.
KRISTOL: They should be worried about the seat. When I saw the results on election night it was about 42 percent to 41 percent. Most of the other votes went to a right-wing Republican, a Tea Party Republican.
SANTORUM: Yes.
KRISTOL: So you could say, well, that's (INAUDIBLE) Hyde-Smith. Maybe they don't turn out.
You know, Espy can make it close, maybe he can win. He was a cabinet -- Clinton cabinet secretary, a free trader. I mean, when we actually look at the race he sounds more like a Republican on a lot of issues.
He's free trade. He's for American leadership in the world. She sounds much more Trumpy.
I do think it is part of a bigger -- a much bigger national problem for the Republican Party, which is your normal swing voter in Virginia or a lot of swing states across the country, in the upper Midwest, which will be key for 2020. And you look at that and you think that's kind of the Republican Party, that's, you know, sort of wishing that we could go back to the good old days of the confederacy.
It may be unfair in her case but I do think it's a bad image for the Republicans.
SANTORUM: I think that's unfair and I think to say that a candidate from Mississippi is somehow representative of a candidate from every other corner of the country is not fair to the Republican Party.
Look, if Republicans win like we won in Pennsylvania because we nominate people that fit the area that we're running in and --
KRISTOL: Republicans lost this year in Pennsylvania precisely because the national image of the party overwhelmed, you know, fairly reasonable local -- statewide and local candidates. So that makes my point, think.
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: Go ahead.
BASH: All right. Sorry. We have a lot more to talk about. We have to take a break.
Up next, we're going to talk about 2020. The campaign is already underway and challengers are facing both sides. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:41:26]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I want great climate. We're going to have that.
Is there a climate change? Yes.
Will it go back like this, I mean, will it change back? Probably. That's what I think.
I'm not denying climate change but it could very well go back.
LESLIE STAHL, HOST, "60 MINUTES": Can't bring them in --
TRUMP: But the scientists also have a political agenda.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: President Trump appears to be at odds over his own administration over their new report warning about the effects of climate change. Did we mention that the administration released the report on Friday of a holiday weekend?
Let's talk about that. Rick Santorum is nodding his head.
SANTORUM: Good for them.
BASH: Good for them?
SANTORUM: Yes.
BASH: All right. Well, at least you guys are transparent about it.
SANTORUM: Well, this is a report generated by people who are in the bureaucracy. These are not Trump appointees. I mean, this report has been generated for --
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: Meaning they're nonpolitical?
SANTORUM: Well, no. That -- I think, the point that Donald Trump make is true which is, look, if there was no climate change we would have a lot of scientists looking for work.
The reality is that a lot of these scientists are driven by the money that they receive. And, of course, they don't receive money from corporations and Exxon (ph) and the like.
Why? Because they're not allowed to. Because it's tainted but they can receive it from people who have -- who support their agenda and that's what -- and that I believe is what's really going on here.
No one doubts that the climate is changing. No one doubts that. The question is how much does man contribute, number one?
And, number two, what can man do to actually change it? Those are the two big issues which we really don't talk about.
SANDERS: Let me just say that on the world stage -- we look at it from a global level. Scientist after scientist after scientist is now sounding the alarm that if we do not do something to protect our planet now, 20 to 30 years from now, our life will be very different.
So this is not some ploy by the lobby of the climate elite. I don't even know if that exists. This is facts of what's happening.
California was literally burning last week. California was literally burning. That is not normal. Increased flooding in areas.
SANTORUM: And man had a lot to do with that.
SANDERS: That is not normal.
SANTORUM: Man's policy had a lot to do with that with all -- because of the forestry policies of the state of California --
(CROSSTALK)
SANDERS: Oh, OK. So we just need to rake the floor?
(LAUGHTER)
SANTORUM: So, the reality is that, yes, there's no question the climate is changing. But to go to say well, scientists have a consensus. The reality is that there is lots of disagreement out there about what is causing this.
No one, again, questions whether the climate is changing. The climate always is changing. And the people that you said, well, we have to do something right now, 25 years ago, they said the same thing. And here we are, 25 years later --
SANDERS: And now California is burning. SANTORUM: Well, California is burning because they have bad forestry policies. They've left a lot of fuel there for people -- on the floor of these forests to allow these fires to get out of control.
BASH: And because a part of what was in this report, again, put out by the administration, was that it has a big economic impact. It will. Ten percent of the American economy, it says, will be devastated and pretty much gone in the next several decades.
That should have some bells ringing and whistles blowing for Republicans and Democrats.
KRISTOL: I mean, what's sad is conservatives have good policy arguments about how to deal with climate change or how to ensure against it, to the degree that it is caused by humans, to the degree that it will have real bad consequences down the road.
You can do carbon taxes. You can do either -- you can replace trade that off (ph) -- the taxes that hurt with the fuel tax.
BASH: You lost some (INAUDIBLE).
KRISTOL: What?
BASH: You lost some (INAUDIBLE).
KRISTOL: No, (INAUDIBLE) fail (ph) this (ph). You have to be serious about it. And this is the greatest problem with Trump. He has frozen any attempt by Republicans to think about these issues, whether it's this or foreign issues or immigration I would say.
[09:45:00]
Whether reasonable debates to be had and reasonable policies where I think you could do -- you can address these problems that are market friendly, nongovernment bureaucracy, intrusive manner that would be more effective in my view. But Trump is just -- is it impossible to even have that discussion with Trump. Trump attacks everyone's motives, attacks everyone's, you know, makes it seem like there's no reasonable position on the other side. And then people -- the Republicans sort of follow him like sheep and the party looks idiotic.
The party, which 25 years ago, when Rick came into the Congress and the Senate, was a party of ideas, some of them good, some of them not so good in retrospect (ph) but a lot of them good and a lot of them interesting. The party -- the Republican Party does not look to any younger person now like a party that's willing to confront ideas (ph) --
BASH: Speaking of younger people I want to turn to -- to talk a little bit of politics and, Jen Psaki, I want to get you on this.
Let's listen to what your former boss, President Obama, said about somebody he sees as a potential future candidate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Impressive young man, who ran a terrific race in Texas. It felt as if he based his statements and his positions on what he believed. The reason I was able to make a connection with a sizeable portion of the country was people had a sense that I said what I meant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: President Obama was comparing himself to Beto O'Rourke, who ran and lost in Texas for the U.S. Senate seat.
PSAKI: Yes, that's right.
BASH: Was he trying to set him up?
PSAKI: I hope so.
BASH: Prop him up, I should say.
PSAKI: I hope so. Look, I think someone like Beto is the type of person that Democrats would get excited about and here is why.
He is somebody who ran. He had some progressive issues. He had some moderate issues, but everybody -- but Democrats coalesced around him in Texas.
He's somebody who ran to represent all people there. And he ran knowing what he believed in.
And I think what President Obama said is important, no surprise that I'm saying that, but a lot of candidates run on the Republican and Democratic side not knowing why they're running and changing what they stand for. And, I think, what he's saying is run authentically, run for who you are and stand -- and speak to what you believe in. And that is going to be a successful path.
So I certainly am one who hopes somebody like Beto gets in the race. I hope lots of people run. It's good for the Democratic Party but his authenticity --
KRISTOL: That hope will come true. I'm going to make this prediction.
PSAKI: That is true.
KRISTOL: I'm going to make a bold prediction.
Jen Psaki's hope that lots of Democrat who run is going to be fulfilled.
(LAUGHTER)
PSAKI: I think it's true. But I think the key piece here is that he is someone who is authentic, you can inspire people and that's the kind of candidate we need to nominate.
BASH: Is that a nod like go Beto? What are you nodding at?
SANTORUM: No. Look, authenticity is absolutely the key here. Everybody trying to look like somebody else or trying to be somebody, and you just got to be who you are and put it out there. And let the chips fall where they may.
That's my advice to all these presidents -- candidates. And I would encourage them all to run. It's an amazing experience. It's a wonderful experience. You won't regret it.
SANDERS: Look, I think we need to have a robust primary on the Democratic side of the aisle. I don't think there's a shortage of people that want to put their name in the ring to run for president. But I will say the path to the Democratic nominee, you have to -- it goes to South Carolina, it goes through the super Tuesday states, and you have to be able to win black women.
But the path to the president could be Donald Trump. Black women have to love you and white women have to like you. And I think that the midterm elections have demonstrated that there is a path for Democratic candidate.
I mean, look the Democrats now hold the governor's mansions in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. I think we can give folks (INAUDIBLE).
BASH: Great conversation. Thank you all.
PSAKI: Thank you.
BASH: Appreciate it.
And up next after a historic election for women -- we were just talking about women -- can Nancy Pelosi get the gavel again? My interview with the woman in a power struggle to become a two-time house speaker.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:52:58]
BASH: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.
A second group of House Democrats is now threatening to withhold support from Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi as she tries to retake the speaker's gavel. For my series, "BADASS WOMEN OF WASHINGTON," I talked to leader Pelosi about opposition from inside her own party and she had some advice as the first and only female speaker for other women.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: Hello, hello.
BASH (voice-over): When Nancy Pelosi first ran for House leadership 18 years ago, her male, Democratic colleagues didn't get it. PELOSI: When people said, oh, a lot of the women are supporting Nancy to run, and they said, well, why? Do the women have a list of things they want us to do? Why don't they just make us a list and give us the list?
This is the Democratic Party in the year 2000.
BASH: Some things haven't changed much.
(on camera): Generally speaking, when a woman is tough, she is called a bitch.
PELOSI: Yes.
BASH: When a man is tough, he's called effective.
PELOSI: I get some names called, because if you're effective as a woman, then they have to undermine you, because that's a real threat. So I'm probably the target -- more of a target than anybody except somebody who runs for president.
BASH (voice-over): Her thick political skin comes from growing up in a political family in Baltimore's little Italy. When she was six, her father, Thomas D'Alesandro Jr., was elected Baltimore's first Catholic mayor. Her female role model, her mother, was the one who helped make that happen.
PELOSI: There are two things about what I bring with me from my family in this regard. One is to know how to count. That's very important, count your votes to win the election, count your votes to win a vote on the floor. But the other is listen to the constituents.
BASH: That political savvy is essential right now in her fight to beat back a move by some fellow House Democrats to find a different house speaker.
PELOSI: I have a broad base of support in the country, financially, politically, and otherwise. None of us is indispensable.
[09:55:01]
But some of us are just better at our jobs than others.
BASH (on camera): For most women, frankly, you know, myself included, it is hard to say those words, I am uniquely qualified, I deserve this, I earned this, I can do this better than anyone else.
PELOSI: Dana, I do it because I want women to see that you do not get pushed around and you don't run away from the fight.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASH: Thank you for spending your Sunday morning with us. You can follow our show on Facebook and Twitter.
And up next, as emergency room doctors take on the NRA over gun violence, what we're learning about how to prevent more deadly attacks. Stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
||||| “We have the will to put the money at the border for better security and combine it with some sensible reforms," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo Immigration Klobuchar: Trump has 'gut-punched' immigration reform efforts
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Sunday criticized President Donald Trump for having “gut-punched” Congress in its efforts to legislate fixes to America’s immigration system, and said lawmakers are prepared to boost federal funding for border security in exchange for certain reform measures.
“He has gut-punched us on that a number of times,” Klobuchar said on ABC’s “This Week,“ adding that the president has “chosen instead to weaponize” and “politicize” the issue of immigration.
Story Continued Below
The senator’s remarks followed a tweet by Trump earlier in the day, in which the president blamed Democrats for increasing numbers of Central American migrants congregating at the southern border in the hope of seeking asylum in the U.S.
“Would be very SMART if Mexico would stop the Caravans long before they get to our Southern Border, or if originating countries would not let them form (it is a way they get certain people out of their country and dump in U.S. No longer),” Trump wrote online. “Dems created this problem. No crossings!”
Klobuchar told host George Stephanopoulos that the Trump administration “should have been working with these Central American countries a long time ago” to pre-emptively curb mass migrations, and pointed to the need for “comprehensive immigration reform.”
“We have the will to put the money at the border for better security and combine it with some sensible reforms, including things like a path to citizenship, things like making sure we have workers on our fields and in our factories that we need,” the senator said.
Earlier this weekend, the Trump administration struck a preliminary agreement with Mexico’s incoming president to keep asylum-seekers off American soil while their applications make their way through U.S. courts.
Trump also is staring down an impending clash with Congress over funding for his campaign-trail promise of a border wall, and has not ruled out shutting down the government if that money is not included in a must-pass government funding measure. | Rep. Adam Schiff kept up his public feud with President Trump Sunday by calling him "weak" and "dishonest" on State of the Union, per CNN. "I have been briefed by the CIA. And while I cannot discuss the contents of the briefing in any way, I can say that I think the president is being dishonest with the American people," says Schiff of Trump's assertion that the CIA lacks evidence to blame Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for Jamal Khashoggi's death. Trump "feels that, by saying that we don't know or that the world is a dangerous place or everybody does it, he thinks it makes him look strong," adds Schiff. "It actually makes him look weak. It means that our allies don't respect us, our enemies don't fear us." Also around the Sunday dial: Immigration reform: Trump "has gut-punched us on that a number of times," Sen. Amy Klobuchar says on ABC's This Week, per Politico. She says Trump has "chosen to weaponize" and "politicize" the immigration issue. |
For the second year in a row, Russian President Vladimir Putin has left it until the end of the year to make a surprising decision concerning a major political opponent. In 2013, he suddenly let former oil magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky out of prison and allowed him to fly to Germany -- because, Putin explained, Khodorkovsky's mother was dying in a Berlin hospital and they needed time together. Today, a Moscow court handed corruption-fighting lawyer Alexei Navalny a surprisingly lenient 3 1/2-year suspended sentence -- but sent his brother, Oleg Navalny, to prison for the same term.
Putin presents himself as a war leader, and the hostage-taking of Navalny's brother is an act of war in keeping with the rules outlined in the Kremlin's new military doctrine, which lists internal dissent as a "military danger". It's akin to the actions of medieval kings and modern Middle Eastern dictators -- like Henry II of England in the 12th century forcing Welsh ruler Rhys ap Gruffydd to give up his son, or the practice developed by the Assad regime in Syria of grabbing the family members of Muslim Brothers it was hunting.
I realize these are strange analogues for the modern leader of a European nation. It's tempting to follow political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann in theorizing that hostage-taking has nothing to do with it and the court verdict was simply the result of a bureaucratic compromise between the investigators, the prosecutors and the judge. "The Russian government system is bureaucratic," Schulmann wrote. "It's not a leader-driven regime, despite what people usually think."
According to Schulmann, Oleg Navalny, a postal official who ran a logistics company on the side, was the central figure at the trial and had to receive a heavier sentence. Pro-Kremlin columnist Eduard Limonov, too, explained things in these terms:
Oleg worked for Russian Post. And here's what he did: He stole a client from the post office, a big company, Yves Rocher, and passed on this client to a shell company set up by his brother, which was allegedly a logistics company, but in fact a vulgal parasite company, an intermediary that handed over the business to someone who really delivered cargo, did the work. They delivery people started moving Yves Rocher cargoes for a low price, and the brothers enjoyed the profits from the scam.
So, Oleg Navalny, with his conflict of interest, was the bigger evildoer. Alexei just set up the shell company. So, here's a suspended sentence for Alexei and a jail term for Oleg.
There are three problems with that logic. The first one is, in the modern Russian context, a technicality. Limonov's paragraph describes a legitimate business deal, though perhaps not a 100 percent ethical one: Oleg Navalny's contract did not ban him from doing business on the side, and Yves Rocher, the French cosmetics maker, admitted during the trial that it suffered no damage from his scheme. The brothers have been convicted simply for doing business -- apparently a crime in the eyes of many Soviet-trained prosecutors and judges.
The second problem is that the Navalny case is not about Russia's icy business climate. It's all about politics.
Navalny played a key role in the 2011-2012 protests in Moscow, which rocked the Kremlin regime and prompted it to crack down on dissent. In the years since the protests fizzled, Navalny has been the subject of three criminal cases. Last year, he received a five-year suspended sentence on the blatantly trumped-up charge of stealing lumber from a state-owned company. Nine of Navalny's political allies have also been prosecuted on various pretexts. The Kremlin is clearly out to get the 38-year-old Moscow lawyer. And it seems safe to say that Putin is involved.
The third problem with the "bureaucratic" version of the Navalny verdict is that Putin has recently signaled his approval of punishing the relatives of terrorists, the way it's done in Israel. At his year-end press conference, a journalist asked him what he thought of Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov's practice of persecuting the families of suspected Islamist terrorists. "As a rule, the relatives of people who commit terrorist attacks know about this," Putin said, and referred to the Israeli practice. That shows he's not above attacking his enemies' families.
The Kremlin's hand is obvious in the way the verdict was handled. The week before Christmas, the court announced Navalny would be sentenced on Jan. 15, 2015. His supporters immediately started making plans for a rally in central Moscow, and the government moved to ban rally announcements from online social networks. Facebook initially complied, blocking the original event listing, then followed the example of Twitter and left subsequent announcements untouched. Yesterday, however, Navalny received news from the court that he would be sentenced today.
It looked as though the authorities were intentionally trying to throw potential protesters off the scent -- and then to wrong-foot them with the unexpected sentence. After all, prosecutors asked for 10 years in prison for Alexei and eight years for Oleg Navalny. Nobody had contemplated if they were ready to demonstrate for the activist's little-known brother if he was the only one to go to jail.
It turned out they would, because they sympathized with Navalny, who tweeted this morning that the verdict was "the vilest possible":
https://mobile.twitter.com/navalny/status/549825359102103552
"The terrorists have taken a hostage," Navalny ally Leonid Volkov wrote on the new Facebook event page, which remained unchallenged. "They hope to influence Alexei's political activities before the 2018 presidential election, keep him guessing whether his brother would be eligible for early release." 18,000 people signed up to come to Moscow's Manezhnaya square, just outside the Kremlin, to support the Navalnys.
Nowhere near that many actually turned out, but several thousand people were there. So was Navalny, who broke house arrest to attend the rally. As he arrived on the square, he was promptly detained and driven away, apparently to his home. "It means nothing that I've been detained," he tweeted to his supporters. "There's nothing I can do that you can't."
https://twitter.com/navalny/status/549964906507022336
Despite Navalny's bravery, today's protest was not big enough to make the Kremlin truly worried. Police were in full control, detaining 117 people. Putin will probably crack a smile when he hears his aides' report of the tiny rally. He will see his chosen tactic as successful, and he seems intent on keeping Navalny out of jail despite his escapade today. Why make him a martyr if a few thousand active supporters are all he can muster? And, once emotions cool off, won't he have to think about his brother?
Inside his feudal kingdom, Putin's is waging the same kind of hybrid war as in Ukraine: a combination of psychological pressure, old-fashioned brute force and information trickery. So far, his enemies are much weaker, but continuing economic problems may mean someday -- although likely not soon -- Putin will meet his match, and the opposition, remembering all his dirty tricks, will take no pity on him.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg View's editorial board or Bloomberg LP, its owners and investors.
To contact the author on this story:
Leonid Bershidsky at [email protected]
To contact the editor on this story:
Cameron Abadi at [email protected] ||||| MOSCOW (AP) — President Vladimir Putin's chief political foe was convicted along with his brother on Tuesday in a fraud case widely seen as a vendetta by the Kremlin, triggering one of Russia's boldest anti-government demonstrations in years.
Police officers detain Russian opposition activist and anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, 38, center, on his way to attend a rally in Manezhnaya Square in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2014.... (Associated Press)
Russian opposition activist and anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, 38, second right, and his brother Oleg Navalny, left, enter into the cage at a court in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2014.... (Associated Press)
Russian opposition activist and anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, 38, stands at a court in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2014. Alexei Navalny, the anti-corruption campaigner who is a leading... (Associated Press)
Russian opposition activist and anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, 38, reacts as he stands at a court in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2014. Alexei Navalny, the anti-corruption campaigner who... (Associated Press)
Police prepare to push supporters of Russian opposition activist and anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny away during an unsanctioned protest in Manezhnaya Square in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Dec. 30,... (Associated Press)
Russian opposition activist and anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, 38, right, and his brother Oleg Navalny speak to each other at a court in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2014. Alexei Navalny,... (Associated Press)
Russian opposition activist and anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, 38, centre, walks to attend a rally in Manezhnaya Square in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2014. The unsanctioned protest came... (Associated Press)
Supporters of Russian opposition activist and anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny gather holding red posters reading "Navalny" during unsanctioned protest in Manezhnaya Square in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday,... (Associated Press)
Police officers detain a protester during an unsanctioned protest in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2014. The unsanctioned protest came hours after Alexei Navalny was found guilty of fraud and given... (Associated Press)
Police push supporters of Russian opposition activist and anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny away during unsanctioned protest in Manezhnaya Square in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2014. The... (Associated Press)
Russian opposition activist and anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, 38, second left, and his wife Yulia, left, comfort his brother Oleg Navalny at a court in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2014.... (Associated Press)
Russian opposition activist Alexei Navalny's wife Yulia, right, and his brother Oleg Navalny, center, comfort Alexei at a court in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2014. The Moscow court on Monday moved... (Associated Press)
Police allowed a few thousand protesters to gather just outside Red Square for about two hours — a show of relative restraint for Russian authorities, who have little tolerance for dissent — before moving in to break up the unsanctioned rally by pushing the demonstrators toward subway entrances.
The rally came hours after anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny was found guilty of what activists said were trumped-up charges and given a suspended sentence of 3½ years. His younger brother was sent to prison, a move that drew comparisons to the Stalin-era practice of punishing family members of enemies of the state.
The 38-year old Navalny, a lawyer and popular blogger, rose to prominence with his investigations of official corruption and played a leading role in organizing anti-Putin demonstrations in Moscow in 2011 and 2012 that drew hundreds of thousands.
Navalny, who has been under house arrest since February, violated its terms to attend the rally and was rounded up by police as he approached the site. He later tweeted that police drove him home and blocked him from leaving his apartment.
The protesters, who gathered on the Manezh Square outside the Kremlin, chanted: "We are the power!" and "Russia without Putin!" Some shouted slogans of support for Ukraine, which saw its Crimean Peninsula annexed by Russia in March and has faced a pro-Russia insurgency in the east.
Scuffles erupted between the protesters and pro-Putin activists shouting, "Those who don't like Russia should go to the United States!" — the chants reflecting the Kremlin's depiction of opposition supporters as Western stooges.
The Russian authorities usually move quickly to break up opposition protests, and the unusual delay this time may reflect Kremlin concerns about fueling public anger amid the country's economic woes. The ruble has lost about half its value this year, and the economy is heading into recession under the combined weight of Western sanctions and slumping oil prices.
Police said they detained about 100 protesters, while activists claimed up to 250 were rounded up. Russian law requires demonstrators to get official clearance for rallies. Violators can face prison sentences and heavy fines.
Tuesday's verdict was not scheduled to come down until next month, but the court session was abruptly moved up to the day before New Year's Eve, the main holiday in Russia, in what was widely seen as an attempt to head off protests. Russia's main state-controlled TV stations all but avoided the story.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said the U.S. government was troubled by the verdict, which "appears to be another example of the Russian government's growing crackdown on independent voices."
European Union spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic said the charges hadn't been substantiated and the verdict "appeared to be politically motivated."
Navalny and his brother Oleg were convicted of cheating a French cosmetics company and given the same 3½-year sentence, but only Navalny's was suspended. The court also fined each man 500,000 rubles (about $8,800) and ordered them to pay a total of about 4 million rubles ($77,000) in damages.
Oleg Navalny, the father of two small children and a former executive of the state-owned postal service, has never played a role in the Russian opposition movement. Alexei Navalny and his supporters portrayed the brother's prison sentence as a means of punishing Navalny himself.
"Aren't you ashamed of what you're doing? You want to punish me even harder?" Alexei Navalny shouted at Judge Yelena Korobchenko.
He entered the metal cage that his brother was put into after the verdict and appeared to hold back tears.
"This is the most disgusting and vile of all possible verdicts," Alexei Navalny said outside court.
"The government isn't just trying to jail its political opponents — we're used to it; we're aware that they're doing it — but this time they're destroying and torturing the families of the people who oppose them."
Independent Moscow-based political analyst Masha Lipman said the verdict is a message to the entire Russian opposition: "All of you guys are at our mercy."
Lipman said it was clear the Kremlin had decided not to make a martyr out of Navalny, with the aim being "not to consolidate the opposition, but to demoralize and intimidate it."
The suspended sentence could be converted into a prison term at any time if Navalny breaks the law. His lawyer Vadim Kobzev said he will remain under house arrest until all appeals by either side are exhausted, which could take months.
The trial seemed to be full of inconsistencies.
Prosecutors insisted that the brothers forced the Yves Rocher company "into disadvantageous contracts" and defrauded it of 26 million rubles (about $440,000).
An Yves Rocher executive submitted a complaint to investigators, but its representatives insisted throughout the trial that there was never any damage. Also, the French executive who wrote the complaint left Russia shortly afterward and never attended the hearings.
Navalny was found guilty of embezzlement in a different case in 2013 and sentenced to prison but was released the next day after thousands protested near the Kremlin. He finished a strong second in Moscow's mayoral election later that year.
Russian tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky who spent 10 years behind bars before he was pardoned last year, dismissed Tuesday's verdict as Putin's revenge for Navalny's activism, adding that "Putin and his entourage are capable of vile tricks, deception, forgery and manipulation."
New York-based Human Rights Watch said the verdict sends a message "to expect a harsher crackdown in 2015."
___
Jim Heintz, Kate de Pury and Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow, John-Thor Dahlburg in Brussels, and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report ||||| The latest development in Russia’s neo-czarist trend comes with news that courts there have imprisoned the apparently apolitical younger brother of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, in what seems like an effort to ensure his good behavior.
Navalny had been appealing his conviction for allegedly stealing $500,000 from a state-owned business, charges that many observers believe were trumped up in response to his political activism. In a surprising twist, Navalny was freed, but his younger brother Oleg, a postal worker, was imprisoned for three and a half years.
A consensus among outside observers is that this represents an attempt by Vladimir Putin’s regime to use Navalny’s brother as a hostage to control the activist, without turning him into a potent political symbol.
While Putin’s regime has acted frequently to imprison his political opponents in the past to prevent them from undercutting his power, this appears to be the first time it has imprisoned the family member of an activist. The increasingly authoritarian bent of Putin’s Russia comes as Western economic sanctions put serious pressure on the country’s economy, which entered a recession in November for the first time in five years.
But taking hostages from the family of political rivals was a common practice in Europe during the Middle Ages and indeed in feudal societies around the world. A political leader would demand high-ranking captives, often the sons of lesser nobles, as evidence of their good faith in pledging him their allegiance, or take hostages to ensure safe passage or a truce during wartime. Hostages served as guarantees for international treaties.
Of course, today, international treaties ban hostage-taking, but Putin’s stance on post-Westphalian relations between nation states has been clear since Russia annexed Crimea earlier this year. ||||| Russian President Vladimir Putin has complemented his aggressions abroad this year with a sharp crackdown against domestic opponents. That crackdown entered a sinister new stage Tuesday against Alexei Navalny.
A Russian court convicted the lawyer and opposition leader on fraud charges and handed him a suspended 31/2 -year sentence. Mr. Navalny has long been the target of Kremlin harassment for exposing corruption in high places, so there was little surprise at his conviction on spurious charges. Representatives from... | The good news for Russian political activist Alexei Navalny is that even though he's been convicted of fraud in what supporters say is a bogus case, Vladimir Putin allowed him to remain free with a suspended sentence of 3.5 years. The bad news is that Putin jailed his brother Oleg, a postal worker not involved in politics, for the same amount of time. Reason? "The Kremlin’s new strategy appears to be to allow its critics to go (relatively) free so as not to make them political martyrs, while holding their family members hostage," observes a Wall Street Journal editorial. The idea being: If Alexei steps out of line, brother Oleg will pay the price in prison. It's downright "medieval," declares the headline of a post at Quartz by Tim Fernholz. He notes that this "hostage-taking" strategy was common among rulers in the Middle Ages, and Leonid Bershidsky at Bloomberg also uses the word "medieval" to describe the move. Bershidsky rebuts the legal case against Oleg and writes that the decision might backfire on Putin. "So far, his enemies are much weaker, but continuing economic problems may mean someday—although likely not soon—Putin will meet his match, and the opposition, remembering all his dirty tricks, will take no pity on him." (Alexei Navalny was detained briefly yesterday while attending a protest for his brother, but he later tweeted that police had driven him back to his apartment, reports AP.) |
Story highlights Obama heads out on a three-day, five-state trip Wednesday
President Obama praises U.S. troops as a model for teamwork
Obama calls keeping alive the American dream "the defining issue of our time"
The Republican response criticizes the speech as divisive
President Barack Obama launches a three-day swing through key election states Wednesday after declaring in what could be his final State of the Union address that the nation was strengthening but must confront the defining issue of preserving the American dream.
In the speech Tuesday night to a joint sitting of Congress, Obama offered both his administration's priorities for the coming year and his campaign messaging for his re-election bid in November.
He defended a long list of his trademark policies -- tax increases on the wealthy, Wall Street reform, health care reform, government stimulus spending -- to applause from fellow Democrats while also offering proposals of interest to Republicans, such as corporate tax breaks and expanded oil and gas development.
Declaring "the state of our union is getting stronger," Obama said America had come too far in its still sluggish recover from economic recession "to turn back now."
JUST WATCHED President Obama's SOTU speech pt. 1 Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH President Obama's SOTU speech pt. 1 36:01
JUST WATCHED President Obama's SOTU speech pt. 2 Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH President Obama's SOTU speech pt. 2 29:36
JUST WATCHED Obama: Human dignity can't be denied Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama: Human dignity can't be denied 03:31
JUST WATCHED Obama: No tax break for outsourcing jobs Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama: No tax break for outsourcing jobs 02:39
JUST WATCHED 'I won't walk away from clean energy' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH 'I won't walk away from clean energy' 03:04
JUST WATCHED Obama: Oil production not enough Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama: Oil production not enough 02:03
With unemployment still above 8% and economic uncertainty lingering, Obama framed the challenges facing the country as a choice between opportunity for some or giving everyone a chance to prosper.
"The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive," the president said. "No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules."
He continued by saying, "What's at stake aren't Democratic values or Republican values, but American values, and we have to reclaim them."
The Republican response chided Obama for not addressing the nation's $15 trillion debt more forcefully, presenting a stark contrast in policy proposals and outlook to the president's more optimistic assessment of what has been accomplished and what is needed.
"It was irresponsible for him not to recognize the dire circumstances our country is in because of our debt," conservative Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina said. "He spent his speech making some more promises from government."
CNN Senior Political Analyst David Gergen described it as a "politically shrewd speech" likely to satisfy Obama's Democratic base while winning over some independents.
The annual evening of political pageantry, with senators and representatives joining Cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, military leaders and others in the packed House chamber, included a poignant touch with Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in attendance the night before she will resign due to her brain injury from last year's shooting attack in her native Arizona.
A champion of bipartisan politics, the still unsteady Giffords repeatedly was helped in rising to applaud Obama's speech by her Republican colleague from Arizona, Rep. Jeff Flake.
"It was the least I could do," Flake, a staunch conservative and frequent critic of the president, said. Asked if fellow Republicans thought he stood up so often to support what Obama was saying, Flake said in reference to Giffords: "I think most people would understand I support my colleague and friend."
Obama began and ended the 65-minute speech by praising U.S. troops for unity and teamwork that can serve as a model for facing the country's problems.
He called for lowering corporate taxes and providing incentives for U.S. manufacturers to bring overseas jobs back to America, while ending tax breaks for businesses that continue to outsource. At the same time, Obama said, every multinational company should pay a basic minimum tax, while giving American manufacturers a tax cut.
JUST WATCHED 'Time to take on illegal immigration' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH 'Time to take on illegal immigration' 01:52
JUST WATCHED President hugs Gabby Giffords Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH President hugs Gabby Giffords 00:55
JUST WATCHED Obama: Osama bin Laden is not a threat Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama: Osama bin Laden is not a threat 02:24
"It's time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America," Obama said, adding a challenge to Congress he repeated throughout the night to send him a bill that he pledged to sign "right away."
He also challenged Congress to act on comprehensive immigration reform, a major election-year issue for the important Hispanic-American vote. Short of a major overhaul, he called for legislation like the DREAM Act that provides children of illegal immigrants who go to college or serve in the military a path to possible citizenship.
In response to Republican criticism of his energy policy, Obama said to applause he was ordering his administration to open up 75% of potential offshore oil and gas resources. At the same time, he also said U.S. oil production was at the highest level in eight years, countering GOP claims he was stifling oil development.
On income taxes, Obama repeated his longstanding call for the wealth to pay more in taxes, including a specific proposal for millionaires to have a tax rate of 30%. Earlier Tuesday, millionaire Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney revealed his actual tax rate was lower than 15%.
Obama's presidency so far has been mostly defined by the ideological battle between Democrats and Republicans over the role of government in American society.
JUST WATCHED Obama enters the House chamber Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama enters the House chamber 04:31
JUST WATCHED Obama: I will defend American jobs Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama: I will defend American jobs 01:27
Bolstered by the conservative tea party movement that helped deliver the House majority in 2010, Republicans have pushed for shrinking government to ease mounting federal deficits and debt.
Obama and Democrats argue that deficit reduction must include both spending cuts and revenue increases in a balanced approach that maintains the essential role of government in American prosperity and opportunity.
The partisan divide has led to repeated congressional showdowns over budget and tax issues, with public dissatisfaction with Congress at historically low levels and the U.S. credit rating downgrade.
In his speech, Obama described the possibilities offered by what he called a "blueprint for an American economy that's built to last."
"Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people," Obama said. "An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we're in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded."
At the same time, he repeated his readiness to work with Republicans to build on economic recovery that has started but still struggles to take off.
"But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place," Obama said.
"Let's never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that does the same," he continued. "It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody."
JUST WATCHED GOP slams Obama's economic record Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH GOP slams Obama's economic record 02:44
JUST WATCHED Cain offers Tea Party response to Obama Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Cain offers Tea Party response to Obama 12:57
In the official GOP response, conservative Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said that "it's not fair and it's not true for the president to attack Republicans in Congress as obstacles."
"No feature of the Obama presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others," Daniels said. "As in previous moments of national danger, we Americans are all in the same boat. If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category. If we fail to shift to a pro-jobs, pro-growth economic policy, there will never be enough public revenue to pay for our safety net, national security, or whatever size government we decide to have."
In particular, Daniels called for "a dramatically simpler tax system of fewer loopholes and lower rates" and "a pause in the mindless piling on of expensive new regulations that devour dollars that otherwise could be used to hire somebody."
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is surging in Republican presidential polls after his primary victory Saturday in South Carolina, said at a campaign event in Sarasota, Florida, that if elected president, his first acts would be to sign executive orders undoing policies of the Obama administration.
"Our goal is, in the executive orders that we sign on the first day, that by the time President Obama lands in Chicago, we will have dismantled about 40% of his administration," Gingrich said to cheers.
Obama heads to Iowa, Arizona and Nevada on Wednesday to kick off a three-day tour of five states considered key for the November election. He will speak during the day at manufacturing plant in Iowa and an Intel campus in Arizona.
In his speech Tuesday night, Obama proposed now familiar steps as well as some new ones. The list included:
• A tax code in which the Bush tax cuts expire and the wealthy pay more;
• More refinancing for homeowners in trouble;
• More clean energy incentives;
• Enhanced education and job training initiatives, and,
• The creation of a China task force to monitor trade violations.
Obama and Democrats want to avoid the November election being a referendum on the president and his stewardship of the economy.
Instead, they seek a contrast campaign between a GOP they hope to define as allied with wealthy interests that brought near financial collapse in 2008 versus a president who will fight for working Americans.
Obama's address drew on themes from the Kansas speech he delivered in early December that focused on restoring equal opportunity for all, rather than an economy where the wealthy and reckless such as irresponsible Wall Street investors get ahead.
Democratic sources acknowledge that to succeed in November, Obama has to make the case that his policies have begun to make a difference, with the economy showing signs of improvement.
According to the administration, the economy has added nearly 3.2 million private-sector jobs over the last 22 months, and American manufacturing is creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. The American auto industry is coming back, adding 100,000 jobs in the last year, and U.S. oil production is at the highest level in eight years.
Republicans argue that Obama's policies have stymied growth by increasing regulations and delaying opportunities such as the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada in order to appease some of his liberal support base.
"Extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy," Daniels said. "It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills." ||||| Have an account? Sign In!
Use my Facebook information to fill out my public BuzzFeed profile
Connected to Facebook as .
First & Last Name Your name will appear along side your contributions and on your profile page.
Email Address We’ll send a conformation email to this address. It won’t appear publicly.
Username This will be your buzzfeed URL,
i.e. http://buzzfeed.com/johndoe
Password
Confirm
I agree to the BuzzFeed User Agreement ||||| WASHINGTON — President Obama pledged on Tuesday night to use government power to balance the scale between America’s rich and the rest of the public, trying to present an election-year choice between continued leadership toward an economy “built to last” and what he called irresponsible policies of the past that caused an economic collapse.
Declaring that “we’ve come too far to turn back now,” the president used his final State of the Union address before he faces the voters to showcase the extent to which he will try to contrast his core economic principles with those of his Republican rivals in a time of deep economic uncertainty. While many Americans remain disappointed with the state of the economy and the president’s handling of it, Mr. Obama nonetheless tried to bring into relief the difference between where the country was when he took over and where it is now.
“The state of our union is getting stronger,” he declared in time-honored tradition. “In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs.” He pointed to renewed hiring by American manufacturers and — borrowing the “built to last” phrase from the auto industry he helped save — he sketched out, albeit vaguely, what he called a blueprint for economic growth in which the wealthy play by the same rules as ordinary Americans.
Republicans challenged Mr. Obama’s assessment of the economy, and asserted that his policies had made the situation worse. But with their own poll numbers diving, Congressional Republicans were subdued in their response to the speech, careful not to boo or seem disrespectful. And the president disputed their claim that he was practicing the politics of division.
“You can call this class warfare all you want,” Mr. Obama said of his call to create a more even economic playing field. “Most Americans would call that common sense.” He characterized the choice as one between whether “a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by” or his own vision — “where everyone gets a fair shot.”
In returning to his 2008 campaign motif of these being “not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values,” Mr. Obama presented a somewhat modest list of initiatives he could enact through executive authority coupled with more ambitious proposals unlikely to advance in Congress. It was an address meant to show a president still interested in governing and a leader putting the interests of the American middle class at the top of his agenda.
Many of his proposals centered on changes to the tax code, including limiting deductions for companies that move jobs overseas, rewarding companies that return jobs to the United States and increasing taxes on wealthy Americans.
Taking aim at financial institutions that engaged in risky lending practices that many believe tipped the country into financial crisis, Mr. Obama said he was asking Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and state attorneys general to expand investigations into abusive lending. The new unit, he said, “will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.”
Mr. Obama also proposed a new trade enforcement unit that would add to the number of government investigators pursuing unfair trade practices and that would be responsible for filing lawsuits against foreign countries, namely China. He called for new legislation to make it easier for Americans to refinance their homes if their interest rates are above market rates. And he proposed a bound-to-be-contentious way to allocate any savings from ending the war in Iraq and winding down the war in Afghanistan: by using half of the war savings on infrastructure projects and the other half to reduce the deficit.
“We will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt and phony financial profits,” Mr. Obama said. Though his advisers have vowed a campaign against Congress, he expressed a willingness to “work with anyone in this chamber” and said he would “oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.” | President Obama delivered his third State of the Union address tonight, with a focus as expected on economic inequality and the need for all Americans to get a "fair shot" at success, reports CNN. In fact, Obama called keeping the promise of the American dream alive the "defining issue of our time." (That includes revamping the tax code, he said. Details on his Buffett rule pitch here.) Other highlights: Giffords: Retiring Congresswoman Gabby Giffords got a rousing welcome when introduced, then a long hug from Obama when he arrived. Education: "Tonight, I call on every state to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18." Familiar issue: "Pass the payroll tax cut without delay." Tone it down: He said "Washington is broken" and asked lawmakers to "lower the temperature of this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction." Foreign affairs: Besides tributes to the troops, foreign policy got relatively little attention, notes the New York Times. Joke time: Referring to an old rule classifying milk spills as oil spills: "With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk." BuzzFeed rounds up the groans here. See excerpts of the GOP response by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels here. Special guests included Steve Jobs' widow and Warren Buffett's secretary. |
(CNN) The man who stabbed nine people at a Minnesota mall Saturday before being shot dead by an off-duty police officer was a "soldier of the Islamic state," according to an ISIS-linked news agency.
The statement posted online Sunday by the Amaq agency follows a pattern of ISIS-related media claiming responsibility for what appear to be the acts of individuals across Europe in the past few months.
CNN cannot independently confirm this latest claim.
"We still don't have anything substantive that would suggest anything more than what we know already, which is this was a lone attacker," St. Cloud Police Chief William Blair Anderson told CNN's Jake Tapper Sunday. "And right now, we're trying to get to the bottom of his motivations."
The FBI is calling the attack "a potential act of terrorism."
Community leaders fear anti-Muslim backlash, call for unity
In response to local reports identifying the attacker as being of Somali descent, members of the Muslim and Somali communities held a news conference Sunday expressing their grief for the victims and calling for unity.
"We are also concerned about the potential backlash," said Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chapter in Minnesota. "We understand in St. Cloud there is more anti-Muslim organizing and we hope they do not use this incident to divide ... our community."
Ahmed Said, executive director of the Somali American Relations Council, had previously disclosed that it was unclear if religion motivated the attack, "but we know he is Somali," the Minneapolis StarTribune quoted him as saying. Authorities have yet to confirm the attacker's ethnicity. CNN was also unable to confirm if he was Somali.
St. Cloud is home to one of Minnesota's larger immigrant Muslim communities and tensions with some members in the larger community have spiked at times, the StarTribune reported . The Minneapolis newspaper and the St. Cloud Times identified the attacker as a member of the Somali community.
In 2014, there was damage to mosques in St. Cloud and in 2013 the Muslim community in the city withdrew a bid to build a larger mosque because of tensions, the StarTribune reported.
Speaking at Sunday's news conference, Mohamoud Mohamed, a spokesman for the Central Minnesota Islamic Center in St. Cloud, emphasized that the central Minnesota Muslim community has no relationship with ISIS or any other "Islamic terrorist group."
"We are the victims of those terrorist groups," he said. "Islam is peace... I pray for the victims."
The state was at the center of a federal investigation into the recruitment of fighters for ISIS . Nine Somali-Minnesotans were convicted at trial or pleaded guilty in a plot to travel to Syria to join ISIS. In years back, several dozen male residents left to join Al-Shabaab , a terrorist group working to turn Somalia into an Islamist state.
"What's remarkable about this case was that nothing stopped these defendants from plotting their goal," said US Attorney Andrew M. Luger of the District of Minnesota in announcing federal charges against the men.
"They were not confused young men. They were not easily influenced. These are focused men who are intent on joining a terrorist organization by any means possible."
But on Saturday, a Somali-American mother said she waited fearfully outside the mall Saturday, just like other citizens of the central Minnesota city, because her son was inside during the attack.
"This has been a dark day; it is a day we will never forget," said Lul Hersi. "Let us unite as one Minnesota... Please let's spread love instead of hate. ISIS does not represent us. It does not represent Islam, and it does not represent Somalis."
The attack at the mall
Police and witnesses said the man, wearing a private security company uniform, entered Crossroads Mall on Saturday night around 8 p.m. CT, made a reference to Allah and asked at least one person if they were Muslim before he attacked.
St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis said three people remain hospitalized, including one person who is in a life-threatening condition.
Ashley Bayne, an employee of JCPenney at the mall, was visiting a coworker at the time of the incident.
"All of sudden chaos just broke out," she told CNN's Nick Valencia on Sunday. "There was a bunch of people running into the JCPenney mall entrance, and they were just screaming that someone was going around the mall stabbing people, and that there was blood everywhere. It was just honestly a really scary experience."
Bayne said she ran out to the parking lot and took off in her car.
The stabbings occurred in multiple locations inside the mall, including the common area and in several stores. The mall has security teams on site but they are not armed.
Police knew attacker
While the attacker was not identified, authorities said he'd had three previous encounters with police.
Anderson said most of the encounters were for minor traffic violations. None resulted in an arrest.
CNN Map
Anderson declined to provide further details or say whether the attacker was a resident of St. Cloud. He said he is not ready to describe the stabbings as a terrorist attack until details such as a motive are established.
He's "clearly a hero"
The mayor and police chief praised Jason Falconer, an off-duty police officer from nearby Avon, for killing the suspect as the assailant threatened other people in the mall.
Falconer is a part-time officer for Avon and a former police chief of Albany, Minnesota, the officials said at a news conference Sunday afternoon. Both officials said they had viewed a surveillance tape from a Macy's store which revealed details of the confrontation.
"Officer Falconer was there at the right time at the right place," Mayor Kleis said.
"His heroic actions are exemplary of having witnessed what he did as the suspect was lunging at him with a knife. Not only did he fire, the suspect went down, came back up on three different occasions. He protected others from being injured and potentially loss of life. Clearly, a hero."
City changed forever
The police chief said two search warrants were executed at an address in St. Cloud, and the suspect's vehicle has been impounded.
Chief Anderson said the attack had changed the city forever. St. Cloud is about 65 miles northwest of Minneapolis and has a population of 67,000.
"Whenever something as awful as this happens, it's hard for things to be the same as they were," Anderson said.
The mall will reopen Monday.
"Honestly, last night once everything had happened it still felt unreal, it didn't seem like something that would happen at our mall," said Bayne, the JCPenney employee. "I've been a little shaky ... kind of been crying about it a little bit. But it's definitely something you think about after it happens ... It's really scary to think about and I'm ... just thankful to be alive."
Other attacks
The mall stabbing was one of several incidents reported nationwide Saturday.
JUST WATCHED Sources: Device found at second location Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Sources: Device found at second location 02:15
In New York City, an explosion ripped through the Chelsea neighborhood , leaving 29 injured. A second suspicious device was found a few blocks away, authorities say. ||||| Video (03:30) : Including a description of surveillance video from the mall and the FBI's role in seeking out motive.
– In a few bloody minutes, a man rampaged through a St. Cloud shopping mall Saturday evening, stabbing 10 people before being fatally shot by an off-duty police officer. The violence is being investigated as terrorism, federal authorities said.
None of the victims, mostly men who ranged in age from 15 to 53, was killed in the attack. Sunday's tally was nine victims. Authorities nudged that total to 10 on Monday.
In a media briefing after midnight Sunday, St. Cloud Police Chief William Anderson said an off-duty officer from another jurisdiction confronted and shot the suspect Saturday night inside Crossroads Center mall. He said the man — dressed in a private security uniform — reportedly asked at least one victim whether they were Muslim before assaulting them, and referred to Allah during the attacks.
“We are currently investigating this as a potential act of terrorism,” said the FBI’s Richard Thornton, speaking at a news conference at police headquarters early Sunday afternoon. Thornton did not link the attack to a specific terror group.
Roughly 12 hours after the stabbings, a news agency said to speak for ISIL went to Twitter to claim credit for the mall violence. “The executor of the stabbing attacks in Minnesota yesterday was a soldier of the Islamic State and carried out the operation in response to the citizens of countries belonging to the crusader coalition,” the posting by the AMAQ news agency read.
“We don’t know if the suspect was in contact with or inspired by foreign terrorist organizations,” Thornton said.
Gallery: St. Cloud stabbings at mall investigation continues Gallery: St. Cloud stabbings at mall investigation continues
The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force is looking at the suspect’s social media and other contacts that could shed light on the assailant’s motivation, Thornton said.
While law enforcement has not disclosed the suspect’s name, his father identified him as Dahir A. Adan, 22. Interviewed Sunday through a translator at his apartment in St. Cloud, Ahmed Adan said his son was born in Kenya but grew up in the United States. Other family members said Dahir Adan was beginning his third year as a student at St. Cloud State University.
Police told Ahmed Adan about 9 p.m. Saturday that his son had died at the mall, he said. He had “no suspicion” of his son being involved in any terrorist activity, he added. Police raided the apartment on St. Germain Street on Sunday morning and seized photos and other materials, Ahmed Adan said.
Police executed search warrants for two apartments, including the one where Adan lived with his father, Anderson said. They also impounded the assailant’s car from the mall parking lot.
Inside the building where the Adans lived, a neighbor said the younger Adan sometimes wore a security guard uniform. A cousin down the hall in the same building described Dahir Adan as a good person who minded his own business.
At the news conference Sunday, St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis said three of the stabbing victims remained hospitalized as of 7 a.m.
The officer who killed the suspect was identified as Jason Falconer, a former police chief in nearby Albany.
“The officer’s life was clearly in danger,” Kleis said, pointing to surveillance video that shows the officer shooting and the suspect falling and getting back up three times, at one point lunging toward Falconer.
Falconer owns Tactical Advantage and Tactical Firearms Training in Waite Park. His professional biography says he “specializes in reality-based firearms, law enforcement and personal security training.”
Reached by phone Sunday afternoon, Falconer said, “I’ve been trying to stay away from it all, for the time being.”
Jaylani Hussein, executive director in Minnesota of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Sunday that “we are definitely concerned about the potential for backlash in the community, both in the immediate run and the longer term.”
Hussein called the attack “an isolated incident, and we still don’t know the full facts.”
Ahmed Said, executive director of the Somali American Relations Council, said they don’t know whether religion motivated Adan, “but we know he is a Somali.”
“Let us not rush and jump into conclusions,” Said said in a statement. “… We strongly stress that everybody calms down and focus on what unites us than what divides us in these difficult times.”
Barakad Omar, a classmate of Dahir Adan at Apollo High School, said he was “a good kid” and an A student.
He was more into sports than religion, said Jama Alimad, a community leader and close friend of the family, who described him as “the most assimilated kid in the neighborhood.”
Special Agent Richard Thornton of the Minneapolis bureau of the FBI speaks during a press conference on Sunday, Sept. 18 at the St. Cloud Police station. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Press conference at the St. Cloud Police Station on Sunday, September 18, 2016. A man, suspected of being motivated by global terror, stabbed several people late Saturday before an off-duty police officer fatally shot the attacker at the Crossroads Center mall in St. Cloud.
Until June, Adan had worked on a contract basis as a weekend security guard at Electrolux Home Products in St. Cloud, said Electrolux spokeswoman Eloise Hale.
The rampage began when Adan entered through the Sears in the mall’s southeast side; Adan was shot at the north end of the mall, inside Macy’s, according to Kleis. Those stabbed were attacked about 8:15 p.m. in corridors and common areas, authorities said.
Harley Exsted and his wife, Tama, of Isle, Minn., entered Macy’s at 8 p.m. and soon after heard a popping sound. A group of kids started running toward the mall’s exit. The Exsteds joined a crowd that was fleeing, including a man frantically pushing a baby stroller. As they left Macy’s they heard four more gunshots. “We were terrified,” Harley Exsted said. “We were pretty shook up. We figured we dodged one there.”
Crossroads Center was closed Sunday but will reopen Monday, said Kevin Berry, spokesman for the Chicago-based company that operates the mall.
The mall attack got national exposure when Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton mentioned it, saying she’d been briefed about the incident as well as suspicious explosions Saturday in New York and New Jersey, according to the Associated Press.
Gov. Mark Dayton said he was “appalled at the terrible attacks on innocent Minnesotans in St. Cloud last night. If true that they were motivated by religious bigotry, I condemn them even more strongly. … I ask everyone in the St. Cloud area and throughout Minnesota to rise above this atrocity and act to make religious and racial tolerance one of the ways in which Minnesotans again lead our country.”
Dayton said he will visit St. Cloud on Monday to show his support for officials and citizens there.
At the Mall of America in Bloomington, one of the world’s largest shopping malls and often mentioned as a possible terror target, officials said in a statement that “we have implemented additional police and security measures during this time.”
Jason Falconer
Tami Dung, who owns Nails Sophisticates at the St. Cloud mall, said she saw people flooding out of the center after her salon closed at 8 p.m. She was busy cleaning up when she saw police cars lining up outside the center. Only after she got home did she hear what had happened. “I was so scared to be too close.”
Sabrina Bender arrived with three of her children Sunday at the Crossroads Center. Bender had been shopping in the mall the day before with her children. She said she felt safe in St. Cloud until Saturday’s events.
“It is beyond scary,” she said. “My kids were here.”
“We will be diligent and get to the bottom of this,” Anderson said, adding that police had prior contact with the suspect, but only related to traffic stops.
For many years, St. Cloud has been home to one of the state’s larger immigrant Muslim populations. Tensions have spiked at times between Muslims and others in and around the central Minnesota city.
Staff writers Faiza Mahamud and Erin Adler contributed to this report. | Authorities have not revealed the name of the man who stabbed nine people in a Minnesota mall on Saturday, but his family has identified him as 22-year-old Dahir Adan, reports the Star Tribune. Adan's father said he was a student at a local community college, adding that he had no knowledge of any ties his son might have had with terror groups. Adan was born in Africa but had lived in the US for the last 15 years, said his father, who was informed by police Saturday night that his son had been killed at the mall. The FBI has called the rampage in St. Cloud a "potential act of terrorism," while ISIS has claimed responsibility on behalf of its "soldier." Authorities and witnesses say a man dressed as a security guard began stabbing people inside the mall, asking at least one victim beforehand if they were Muslim. The victims ranged in age from 15 to 53, and three remained hospitalized as of Sunday afternoon, including one with life-threatening injuries. A part-time officer from nearby Avon identified as Jason Falconer confronted the assailant during the attack and fatally shot him, reports CNN. Falconer, who was off-duty at the time, is now being described as a hero, though he tells the Star-Tribune that "I've been trying to stay away from it all, for the time being." |
Nearly two-thirds of the world’s coca crop is grown in Peru. Most of that coca is processed into cocaine base, which is flown to Colombia to make cocaine for shipment to the United States and Europe. Since the 1980s, the primary coca-growing and drug-trafficking activities in Peru have been in its Upper Huallaga Valley. During the early 1980s, the United States provided support for Peru to conduct manual eradication of mature coca leaf. However, because of security concerns for personnel conducting manual eradication, these activities ceased in 1987. Gradually, the United States began to (1) support Peruvian efforts to eradicate coca seedbeds and (2) conduct law enforcement operations against drug-trafficking activities. Before 1989, both operations were conducted by helicopter from Tingo Maria, about 150 miles southeast of Santa Lucia, the center of illegal drug activities. In 1989, the United States and Peru moved their operations to a base located near the town of Santa Lucia. The base, which became the center of U.S. and Peruvian eradication and law enforcement operations, supported between 430 and 492 personnel, including 32 U.S. personnel. The United States continued to provide support to the base until late 1993. The map on page 3 shows the locations of these bases. The Departments of State and Defense and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) coordinate antidrug activities with Peruvian law enforcement and military organizations. At the U.S. embassy in Peru, these functions are carried out by the Narcotics Affairs Section (NAS), the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group, and the DEA Country Attache’s Office. Other U.S. agencies also provide support to Peruvian antidrug programs and operations. According to U.S. officials, the rationale for building the Santa Lucia base was to place U.S. personnel in the safest possible environment from which to conduct antidrug activities. U.S. personnel flying into the heart of the drug-trafficking area were increasingly at risk because in the mid-1980s, the Sendero Luminoso—a Maoist organization attempting to overthrow the Peruvian government—took control of the area. This group protected those trafficking in drugs in return for monetary support for the Sendero. In 1988, the United States began to build the Santa Lucia base, which included an airfield, a maintenance facility for 6 to 10 U.S. UH-1H helicopters used for eradication and law enforcement missions, and housing. Because the base was in a highly dense, tropical area with no safe, accessible roads, fixed-wing aircraft (C-123s and C-130s) were supplied by the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics Matters (INM) to transport personnel, equipment, and supplies to the base from Lima several times each week. In addition, DEA and Peruvian aircraft used the base for law enforcement operations. According to INM and U.S. embassy records, about $49.2 million was provided to construct, maintain, and operate the Santa Lucia base during fiscal years 1988-93. These funds were included as part of the State Department’s International Narcotics Control Program, which is authorized under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, section 481, as amended. INM provided these funds for five projects in Peru (see table 1). Included in the $9.8 million construction project are the costs of daily laborers to construct the base and its related infrastructure; installation of prefabricated housing; equipment and commodities needed to construct and operate helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft facilities and an airstrip; recreational equipment, food, and clothing; and miscellaneous items such as payments to the Peruvian engineer in charge of constructing the airstrip and the rental of heavy equipment. The $16.9 million for CORAH was provided for the direct and indirect costs of supporting between 200 and 250 Peruvian workers to help construct, maintain, and operate Santa Lucia base; provide support services; and perform limited antidrug duties. Direct costs were for activities on the base, including operating equipment such as electrical generators, providing food service, cutting the grass, procuring supplies, and monitoring U.S.-provided equipment to ensure that it was used for counternarcotics purposes. Indirect costs were for support provided from the CORAH headquarters at Tingo Maria, including the purchase of food, construction equipment such as trucks and a bulldozer, supplies and materials, and general supplies for Santa Lucia; and administrative support functions for CORAH personnel at the base. Between March 1990 and November 1993, 10 CORAH workers eradicated coca seedbeds about 3 to 4 hours a day, 3 to 4 days a week. This work was suspended in November 1993 because of budgetary constraints. In addition, up to 50 CORAH workers installed concrete obstacles to block 10 illegal airstrips in the Upper Huallaga Valley. The costs for blocking the airstrips could not be readily determined, but the embassy’s Narcotics Affairs Section said they were included in the direct and indirect costs discussed above. About $6.4 million was spent for police support at Santa Lucia, including (1) per diem for Peruvian police officers stationed at the base to provide security for the base and for workers on eradication missions and (2) commodities used by the police to support the base. About $4.6 million was provided for salaries and expenses of the NAS staff and activities related to administrative support of the base as well as other antidrug programs in Peru. Such support included processing procurement vouchers for goods and services. About $11.5 million was spent on operating and maintaining the fixed-wing aircraft that transported personnel, supplies, and other items to and from Santa Lucia. Generally, two C-123 and two C-130 aircraft were used for these missions. This was funded by INM’s airwing account and not included in Peru’s antidrug program budget. The Congress reduced the State Department’s annual International Narcotics Control Program request for fiscal year 1994 from $148 million to $100 million. After coordinating with various U.S. agencies involved in antidrug activities regarding program options, the State Department decided that it could not adequately support maintenance and operations at the Santa Lucia base while supporting its antidrug programs in Peru and other countries. Thus, in December 1993, the United States stopped supporting the base and the Peruvian government assumed responsibility for the base’s administrative and operational control. State Department officials reported that although trafficking activities had moved outside of the immediate range of U.S.-provided helicopters, they would have maintained the Santa Lucia base had the budget not been reduced. U.S. embassy officials stated that they had already begun to cover an expanded area by conducting helicopter operations using forward operating locations outside of the Santa Lucia area. Some aspects of the restructured programs have been completed and are in place. Specifically, NAS has moved its helicopter maintenance facilities from Santa Lucia to Pucallpa and the government of Peru is now responsible for operating the Santa Lucia base. In addition, INM-owned fixed-wing aircraft used to support U.S. antidrug operations have been returned to the United States and fixed-wing aircraft are now being rented from Peru. However, the U.S. embassy has faced a number of obstacles to fully implementing a mobile basing concept for conducting antidrug missions, including problems with helicopter maintenance, internal conflicts over the responsibility for planning and coordinating antidrug operations, and a U.S. decision not to share with Peru real-time information and assistance that could lead to the shoot down of civilian aircraft suspected of drug trafficking. To stay within the budget, the State Department moved helicopter maintenance facilities and associated U.S. and Peruvian police personnel from Santa Lucia to several different sites in Pucallpa, where an international airport is located. The airport serves as the center from which operations are conducted and for resupplying and supporting maintenance operations. The airport also houses U.S. fixed-wing aircraft used by DEA and other agencies to support law enforcement operations. The maintenance facilities, aviation ground support equipment, and spare parts for 10 UH-1H helicopters are located at a Peruvian naval base in Pucallpa. About 15 U.S. contractor personnel assist the Peruvian police in maintaining and operating the helicopters. A total of about 30 U.S. and 30 to 35 Peruvian personnel live in a hotel about 10 minutes from the naval base. The United States spent about $450,000 for (1) security improvements to the hotel, (2) improvements to three warehouses behind the hotel, (3) improvements to a refueling area, and (4) refurbishment of a warehouse and extension of the perimeter wall at the naval base. Planned projects include improvements to the hotel and naval base and construction of a small hangar and ramp area at the airport for fixed-wing aircraft. Cost estimates for these projects were not available. U.S. embassy personnel stated that U.S. personnel are not allowed to leave the hotel unless they are transported in official vehicles to and from work because of security concerns. According to NAS personnel, morale at Santa Lucia was much better because personnel were free to move around the base after work and tended to interact more readily. With the loss of U.S. support to Santa Lucia, the government of Peru agreed to administer the base and maintain it as a location from which antidrug operations could be conducted. According to the U.S. Embassy’s NAS Director, U.S. officials were concerned that the government of Peru might be unable to provide the resources needed to maintain and operate the base adequately. At the time of our visit, the airstrip needed repair because of holes in the runway and other maintenance problems. The NAS Director estimated that about $1.5 million is needed to repair the airstrip. Nevertheless, DEA is continuing to conduct antidrug operations from the base. Because the State Department stopped supporting the Santa Lucia base, INM-owned fixed-wing support was terminated. In December 1993, INM’s fixed-wing aircraft—two C-123s and two C-130s—and almost $10.1 million in aircraft spare parts were shipped for storage to Davis Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona. The 28 personnel responsible for maintaining the aircraft were returned to the United States. To support antidrug missions at Pucallpa, the embassy now rents fixed-wing aircraft from the Peruvian air force and civilian companies. According to the embassy, the monthly rental costs should be less than $20,000. The embassy’s implementation of the mobile basing concept has been complicated by several problems. The concept included the following assumptions: 8 to 10 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft would be available for antidrug an operational planning group would be established in the embassy to plan law enforcement operations. In early 1994, the Defense Department notified State that it had to ground UH-1H helicopters that had certain engine numbers, which had to be overhauled because of mechanical problems. This created maintenance problems with the UH-1H helicopters that limited the embassy’s ability to fully support the mobile basing concept. Five of the 10 helicopters used in Peru were grounded for 6 weeks because their engines required overhaul. A total of 11 engines had to be overhauled at a cost of $1.65 million. The five remaining helicopters were used extensively during the 6-week period, and thus, all subsequently needed maintenance at about the same time. In June 1994, 3 of the 10 helicopters were in for scheduled maintenance, leaving the embassy with only 7 to conduct operations. Recent embassy reports say that high levels of metal particles are being found in gear boxes and engines, indicating excessive wear and use. An embassy official indicated that this situation may cause future maintenance problems and affect mobility of operations. According to DEA officials, helicopter maintenance problems have limited their ability to plan and conduct operations. For example, a DEA official stated that of the 13 missions requiring helicopter support during a recent 3-month period, the helicopters experienced mechanical problems during 6 of them. In two cases, DEA teams were delayed in the jungle because of the problems. In addition, DEA’s CASA-212 fixed-wing transport aircraft was grounded for several months because of maintenance problems. Finally, an embassy official stated that Peruvian aircraft are frequently grounded because their mechanics have not been properly trained. To further complicate matters, the operational planning group was not formally established by the U.S. Ambassador until July 1994, 7 months after the mobile basing concept was approved, and has not yet been staffed. The delay was caused by internal differences within the U.S. embassy about the structure and staffing of the group. The NAS Director believed that the group should be responsible for more than law enforcement operations and include eradication operations, administrative and training support to the Peruvian police, and other operations that may be needed. He also believed that, since the group would be under the DEA attache that it should be composed primarily with persons having law enforcement backgrounds to ensure that DEA conducts operations meeting U.S. antidrug objectives in Peru. DEA and U.S. military personnel, on the other hand, believed that the group should be primarily responsible for planning law enforcement operations and be staffed with military personnel, who would be more experienced in planning specific operations and identifying logistics support requirements for law enforcement operations in the jungle and interacting with Peruvian military forces in planning military-type operations. According to U.S. officials, the group will be staffed with DEA agents as well as military personnel providing operational, communications, and logistical expertise. The group will be under the control of the DEA country attache. According to a U.S. embassy official, no specific assignments of military personnel have been made to date. Another factor affecting the mobile basing concept’s implementation is the May 1, 1994, decision to stop sharing certain drug-trafficking information with the governments of Colombia and Peru, which we reported on in August 1994. This step was taken because of legal concerns about the probable criminal liability of U.S. personnel who provide information that could lead to the shooting down of a civilian aircraft suspected of transporting illegal drugs. According to U.S. officials, the sharing of real-time information is critical to ensuring that they can take timely action against drug-trafficking activities to increase the risks associated with these activities. The officials stated that the policy decision had impacted on their ability to conduct antidrug operations. Although the impact that the policy has had on the flow of drugs being shipped from Peru to Colombia is unclear, it is clear that pilots flying between Peru and Colombia have changed their operations, since there is little fear of interception by U.S. and Peruvian forces as long as detection capabilities remain negligible and there is no sharing of information. Various U.S. reports and officials have stated that, before the May decision, drug traffickers wanted to minimize their exposure to the air interdiction threat. Thus, they (1) used fewer flights with larger drug loads, (2) flew mainly in the early evening hours, and (3) spent on an average only about 10 to 12 minutes in loading and unloading their cargoes. U.S. officials in Peru said that since the policy change, drug traffickers have changed their operations and (1) have begun multiple flights with smaller drug loads and (2) have begun flying during the day, and some traffickers have doubled their time on the ground. In addition, U.S. officials stated that an analysis of flight patterns indicates that traffickers are reverting to more direct air routes from Peru into Colombia instead of the indirect and more time-consuming routes they were taking before the cutoff of information. DEA officials advised us that the policy to not share real-time information has caused them to forego law enforcement operations against illegal drug activities. Finally, a recent Defense Department report states that the policy of not sharing real-time information has reduced the risks associated with drug-trafficking activities in Peru. On October 5, 1994, the President signed legislation that provides official immunity for authorized U.S. personnel from liability, notwithstanding any other provision of law, if information they provide is used to shoot down civilian aircraft suspected of drug trafficking. However, before sharing of information can resume, the President must determine that (1) illicit drug trafficking poses a national security threat to Peru and (2) Peru has appropriate procedures in place to protect against the innocent loss of life. The executive branch is discussing this issue with the Peruvian government. As of November 30, 1994, the sharing of information had not yet resumed. To obtain information for this report, we interviewed officials and reviewed pertinent documents at the Departments of State and Defense and the Drug Enforcement Administration in Washington, D.C.; the U.S. Southern Command in Panama; and the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru. We also interviewed Peruvian police officials responsible for counternarcotics programs. We did our review between April and July 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As requested, we did not obtain written agency comments on a draft of this report. However, we discussed the information in this report with agency officials and included their comments where appropriate. Unless you release its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days after its issuance. At that time, we will send copies of the report to the Secretaries of Defense and State, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. We will also provide copies to others on request. This report was prepared under the direction of Mr. Benjamin Nelson, Associate Director, who may be reached on (202) 512-4128. Other major contributors are Mr. Andres Ramirez, Assistant Director, and Mr. Ronald D. Hughes, Evaluator-in-Charge. Joseph E. Kelley Director-in-Charge International Affairs 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. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on U.S. antidrug efforts in Peru, focusing on the: (1) rationale for, and costs associated with, the construction, maintenance, and operations of the Santa Lucia antidrug base; (2) rationale for discontinuing support of the Santa Lucia base; and (3) current status of U.S. efforts to restructure antidrug programs in Peru. GAO found that: (1) the Santa Lucia base was constructed to place U.S. personnel in the safest possible environment from which to conduct antidrug activities; (2) between fiscal years 1988 and 1993, the State Department spent about $49.2 million to construct, maintain, and operate the Santa Lucia base; (3) in December 1993, the U.S embassy restructured its antidrug programs in Peru because it could not continue to support the base while also supporting other U.S. antidrug efforts; (4) although the executive branch has approved a formal mobile basing concept to implement antidrug efforts, the U.S. embassy has been slow in implementing the concept because of maintenance problems with helicopters, internal differences within the U.S. embassy over how the operational planning group would function to coordinate law enforcement operations, and the decision to stop sharing information with the government of Peru that could be used to shoot down civilian aircraft suspected of drug trafficking; and (5) although legislation has been passed to allow information sharing on drug activities, the Administration has not reached agreement with Peru on certain required preconditions. |
The F/A-18 is a modern, first-line fighter and attack aircraft used by both the Navy and the Marine Corps. Each F/A-18 is periodically inspected to determine whether it needs to be sent to a depot for maintenance and repairs that cannot be performed at the squadron level. The depot maintenance specification for the F/A-18 is called the Modification, Corrosion, and Paint Program (MCAPP) and consists of inspections to identify needed repairs, the actual repairs, and the incorporation of needed aircraft modifications. Prior to fiscal year 1994, the Navy assigned all F/A-18 MCAPP work to the North Island depot. In an effort to minimize costs, the Navy decided in 1992 to subject its F/A-18 MCAPP maintenance to public/private competition. The competition package consisted of an expected quantity of 72 MCAPPs with minimum and maximum quantities of 36 and 90 MCAPPs in the first year, and options to continue the contract for up to 4 additional years. The minimum, maximum, and expected quantities were lower for each successive option year, and the estimated value of the contract if all options were exercised was about $61 million. North Island, Ogden, and two private contractors submitted bids. Ogden’s was substantially lower than the others and the Navy cost-evaluation team generally found the bid to be well-supported. Ogden was awarded the contract on August 24, 1993, and started work on the first F/A-18 MCAPP on December 8, 1993. The Air Force subsequently was informed that it would only get 36 MCAPPs, the minimum number in the competition package, because the Navy wanted to maintain core capability at North Island.Although the Air Force attempted to have Ogden assigned as the source of repair designation for the F/A-18, the Navy, with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) approval, continued to maintain F/A-18 aircraft maintenance at North Island. Thus, the MCAPP workload was split between the Navy depot and the Air Force depot. Between August 1993, when Ogden was awarded the F/A-18 contract, and November 1994, when the last F/A-18 was inducted at Ogden, North Island inducted 34 F/A-18s and Ogden 36. Navy core analysis data indicates the core capability for the F/A-18 is 18 aircraft. Following the competition, the Navy reengineered its work processes at North Island and reduced its cost of the F/A-18 repair work. In September 1994, the Navy began evaluating whether to exercise its option for the second year of the F/A-18 contract. North Island submitted a proposal to give it the F/A-18 workload that otherwise would have continued at Ogden. Since the Navy was planning to add additional maintenance requirements to the MCAPP repair specification, the contracting officer asked Ogden to provide a bid for the additional work. According to Ogden officials, they were not told that this bid was to support a competitive comparison with North Island. Title 10 U.S.C. 2469 requires DOD to use competitive, merit-based procedures before depot-level work valued at $3 million or more can be moved from one DOD depot to another or from a DOD depot to the private sector. In response to this requirement the Navy, in December 1994, prepared an analysis that compared the estimated quality, schedule, and cost of MCAPP work at Ogden and North Island. The Navy concluded that quality was the same at both activities but that North Island could perform the work in fewer days and at less cost to the government. As a result, the Navy decided not to exercise its option for the second year at Ogden, but rather to consolidate all F/A-18 MCAPP work at North Island. The Navy’s decision to consolidate F/A-18 work was based on its analysis of F/A-18 MCAPP schedule and cost differences between Ogden and North Island. In evaluating schedule differences, the Navy compared the estimated days required by each activity to complete an MCAPP. In evaluating cost differences, it compared the estimated total cost to the government for each activity to complete an MCAPP by estimating the labor hours, the labor-hour rate, and the resulting total cost at each activity. The cost analysis included labor and overhead costs but excluded direct material costs, which the Navy stated should be the same at both activities. The cost analysis also excluded airframe modification costs performed concurrently with MCAPP work because modifications vary considerably from airframe to airframe. Details of the Navy’s December 1994 analysis, including the adjustments made to Ogden and North Island data, follow. Also, appendix II summarizes the cost comparison made by the Navy. The Navy attempts to minimize the time each aircraft is out of service for depot maintenance because of readiness concerns and to help minimize the number of aircraft required for the maintenance pipeline. In its comparison of the time Ogden and North Island took to complete an F/A-18 MCAPP, the Navy used the number of repair days bid by each activity. Ogden had bid 143 days to complete an MCAPP II and North Island 110 days. Based on this comparison, the Navy concluded that North Island could complete an MCAPP in less time than Ogden. The Navy made no adjustments to the repair days bid by each depot. However, it noted that Ogden’s average repair days on completed F/A-18s were greater than its bid while North Island’s average repair days were less than its bid. Ogden delivered only the first aircraft ahead of schedule, with the next 15 delivered between 17 to 217 days late. Ogden officials estimated that the remaining 20 aircraft would be delivered between 35 to 298 days late. Navy officials acknowledged that the Navy caused some Ogden schedule delays through such actions as late delivery of parts and late approval of funding, but did not quantify the extent of these delays. In its review of North Island production, the Navy developed turnaround data for North Island using only the last six F/A-18 MCAPPs. This data supported a turnaround time of 107 days for those aircraft. However, a review of production schedules for all F/A-18 MCAPPs completed at North Island during fiscal year 1994 revealed that the average turnaround time over that period was 269 days—almost 2-1/2 times longer than the 110-day bid submitted by North Island. Navy officials noted that process improvements at North Island had significantly reduced the F/A-18 turnaround time, and this improvement was demonstrated by the production turnaround time achieved for the six MCAPPs used as a basis for the Navy analysis. While Ogden’s production turnaround time was also significantly longer than its bid supported, Ogden officials gave us data showing that the depot’s late delivery of 15 of the first 16 aircraft was caused primarily by a number of Navy actions. Air Force officials cited approval of engineering repair proposals as the most frequent reason for work delays. For repairs not covered by maintenance manuals provided the Air Force, Ogden’s engineers must design and submit for approval proposed repairs under the Rapid Response Repair (3R) System to the F/A-18s Cognizant Field Activity at the North Island Naval Aviation Depot. This approval is required before proposed repairs can be made. Ogden officials reported that work delays occurred because it often took several weeks to obtain required technical information from the Navy’s Cognizant Field Activity before a repair could be designed and once designed, it took too long to get Navy approval. Usually proposed repairs had to be submitted multiple times before being approved. Data provided by Ogden showed that they had experienced delays of 11 to 90 days in obtaining 3R approval on 18 of the 36 aircraft inducted as of March 1995. North Island officials said that the time they took to respond—but not necessarily approve—Ogden’s 3R requests met or was less than the time called for in the contract and that the average response time was 2.7 days. They also noted that the response time in support of Ogden was better than the response time required to process 3Rs for the North Island depot. We noted that 3R response times do not reflect the time required to obtain the technical data needed to prepare the proposal or the number of times the proposal is resubmitted before being approved. Late funding by the Navy was the second most frequent reason Ogden cited for work delays. Before applying an engineering modification called for by the contract, the Navy F/A-18 program office had to approve the expenditure of procurement funds for this purpose. According to Ogden officials, work on 28 of the 36 aircraft was delayed from 5 to 259 days because of late funding. F/A-18 Program Office officials stated that late funding was a problem caused by an archaic funding system. This funding system was not used for similar work by the Navy’s North Island depot. Data provided by the Air Force indicated that late receipt of replacement parts was the third most significant cause of work delays at Ogden. Contractually, Ogden must obtain replacement parts from the Navy supply system; however, the system was frequently unable to provide items when Ogden needed them. Aircraft processing records show that 17 of 36 aircraft experienced work delays because replacement parts were not available from the Navy supply system when needed. Delays caused by late replacement parts ranged from 2 to 52 days. Navy officials acknowledged that F/A-18 spare parts shortages are a Navy-wide problem, but they said that since North Island is the approved overhaul depot for F/A-18 components, parts shortages had less of an impact on North Island’s F/A-18 delivery schedule. Ogden officials noted that they had the capability to repair some of the parts had they been allowed to do so. Ogden incurred other significant delays because the Navy required the reinspection of certain aircraft using a procedure that included the removal of wings from some completed aircraft. Nine aircraft were delayed from 14 to 30 days—a total of 211 days—because the Navy required Ogden to remove the wings and reinspect the wing attach lugs for possible damage, after an Ogden crew used an unapproved mechanical process to remove an anticorrosive compound from the wing lugs on one of the earlier aircraft. Reinspection of the aircraft in question did not find damage. All measurements were within the specifications outlined by the Navy for surface roughness and lug thickness. Three other aircraft that had been worked on by the crew using the unapproved procedure were also reinspected and showed no evidence that an unauthorized machine process had been used or that the wing lugs were out of tolerance. Although no damage was found, the Navy required Ogden to inspect five additional aircraft, even though these aircraft had not been worked on by the same crew. These inspections produced no evidence of the unauthorized machine process and only one out-of-tolerance condition concerning surface roughness. The cause of that discrepancy, a small scratch, could not be determined by either the Navy or Ogden. Air Force and Defense Contract Management Command (DCMC) officials questioned the need to require the removal of wings on completed aircraft. The Navy believes that requiring Ogden to remove the wings and reinspect the lugs was justified because the area involved was a flight critical structure from an aircraft safety standpoint. According to Ogden officials, various work delays caused by the Navy prompted over 100 letters to the Navy contracting officer asking for corrective action on various problems causing the delays and also asking for schedule extensions resulting from prior delays. The Navy contracting officer did not respond to any of the letters, and only after the F/A-18 MCAPP contract was terminated did it allow the DCMC to act on Ogden requests for schedule extensions. According to DCMC officials, on other programs they are routinely allowed to modify schedule delivery dates when conditions are appropriate. These officials noted that a private contractor may have stopped work. Ogden officials attempted to analyze the collective impact of various delays on the depot’s ability to repair aircraft. They noted that various delays were ongoing concurrently, but their analysis revealed that one aircraft experienced delays attributed to the Navy totaling 546 days. Noting that they overlapped for the various conditions, Air Force officials concluded that work was delayed 82 days while 6 3Rs were being processed, 259 days because funding was approved late, and 205 days for other reasons such as late receipt of replacement parts and a faulty engineering repair solution. Navy officials dispute that delays were caused by the length of 3R processing times and noted that delays due to the lack of spare parts in critical supply were also experienced across the entire Navy. The Navy’s first step in analyzing F/A-18 MCAPP costs at Ogden and North Island was to compare MCAPP labor-hour requirements. However, for several reasons making such a comparison is difficult. First, the two activities used different MCAPP repair specifications, which affect the labor hours required to perform the work. After the competitive contract was awarded to Ogden, the F/A-18 repair specification was changed to incorporate additional inspection requirements. The extra inspections normally identify additional repair tasks, which also require more labor hours to complete. North Island has used the revised repair specification, called MCAPP II, since May 1994, while Ogden had continued to use the original MCAPP specification as called for by the terms of the contract. We noted that during fiscal year 1994, the Navy completed 82 MCAPPs using the same specification as that used by Ogden and that the labor hours required to complete these aircraft averaged 7,299 labor hours. F/A-18s inducted at North Island after December 18, 1993, the date when the first Ogden F/A-18 was inducted, averaged 6,819 labor hours. Navy officials stated that process improvements to reduce the labor hours required at North Island to complete an F/A-18 MCAPP had only been completed in time to fully benefit F/A-18 MCAPP II aircraft, which were first inducted in April 1994. We determined that although the MCAPP II specification was expected to require more labor hours than MCAPP I, the average labor hours for the 6 MCAPP II aircraft completed before the time of the Navy’s analysis was 5,684—a significant reduction over the historical average time required for MCAPP Is at North Island. The Navy attributed these labor-hour reductions to increased efficiencies at the North Island depot—primarily because it reduced the number of components that were overhauled concurrently with the MCAPP. Second, differences in the number of carrier-based and land-based F/A-18s repaired also complicate a labor-hour comparison by each activity. Navy officials stated that this comparison is important because the F/A-18 repair specification makes a distinction between carrier-based and land-based F/A-18s. Specifically, the repair specification requires more inspections for carrier-based F/A-18s because they normally are subjected to a harsher environment and more physical stress due to salt water, catapult launches, and arrested landings. According to the Navy, the additional inspections normally result in more repair work. At the time of the Navy’s analysis, North Island had recently completed six carrier-based F/A-18s while Ogden had completed two carrier-based and five land-based F/A-18s. The Navy did not use data from the carrier-based aircraft repaired at Ogden. Third, differences in F/A-18 component repair procedures at each activity also complicate a labor-hour comparison between the two activities. Under terms of the Ogden contract, most components requiring repair are to be exchanged for replacement components provided by the Navy for installation on the aircraft. At North Island, many components requiring repair are to be repaired concurrently with the aircraft and then reinstalled on the aircraft. The additional labor hours used by North Island for component repairs are included in the total labor hours charged to each aircraft. North Island officials told us that the biggest factor influencing its process improvement was that the depot significantly reduced the number of components that were overhauled concurrently with MCAPP. Rather than routinely overhauling components that had been removed from aircraft being inducted for an MCAPP, revised procedures called for only overhauling components if they did not meet technical requirements. Fourth, there are differences in the amount of work required on each aircraft. Each aircraft is unique and the amount of needed repairs identified during the inspections varies considerably from aircraft to aircraft. The use of averages tends to normalize these variations in work content. However, the averages used in the Navy’s analysis were based on small quantities of completed aircraft at both depots. As a result, the averages may not have normalized labor-hour differences caused by differences in the repairs required on each aircraft. This problem probably affected analysis of the Ogden hours even more than North Island since Ogden had not advanced far enough along in the F/A-18 repair program to reach a normalized production level. Finally, there are other differences between the activities that affect labor hours used for MCAPP work that also complicate a labor-hour comparison. For example, there are differences in (1) the cost accounting systems used to collect labor-hour expenditures, (2) operation and administration procedures for work performed, and (3) the numbers of F/A-18 MCAPPs completed in the past that affects the comparability of performance data and the potential for future improvement. The Navy made several adjustments to the historical data used in its analysis. Through the adjustments, the Navy estimated the labor hours required by each depot to perform an MCAPP II on a land-based F/A-18 with no concurrent repair of components. These adjustments increased Ogden’s labor hours and reduced North Island’s labor hours below Ogden’s. The Navy did not make adjustments to account for known factors causing labor-hour increases at Ogden, such as delays caused by the nonavailability of parts, time awaiting approval of proposed maintenance actions, a Navy required wing removal and reinspection, front-end training time, or increases due to the type of contract administration used for the Ogden repair work. The Navy also did not recognize Ogden’s potential for reducing labor hours as additional aircraft were produced or consider basing its land-based versus carrier-based analysis on Ogden aircraft results rather than North Island’s even though Ogden had produced both types. As the starting point for Ogden, the analysis used the 3,069 average labor hours approved for payment by the contract administrator for the 5 land-based F/A-18s completed by Ogden at the time of the analysis. Actual labor-hour expenditures at Ogden were not used because the work at Ogden was being administered similar to a contract with a private company. As a result, the Navy said it only had access to the labor hours approved for payment by the contract administrator. The Navy made three adjustments to the Ogden average. First, the contract administrator had made a decision in November 1994 to approve 12 to 17 percent additional labor hours for personal, fatigue, and delay time associated with certain work at Ogden. Based on this decision, the Navy adjusted some of Ogden’s proposed labor hours using a 12-percent factor, which added 153 hours. In January 1995, Ogden formally requested approval for compensation for additional hours to reflect personal fatigue, and delay time using a 16.7-percent factor. The Navy made a second adjustment to add the labor hours required for the additional MCAPP II inspection requirements. In September 1994, the Navy asked Ogden to submit a bid for these additional requirements, and in response, Ogden submitted a proposal for 228 additional labor hours. Based on this proposal, the Navy added 228 hours to Ogden’s labor-hour estimate. The third adjustment made to Ogden’s labor hours added 480 hours estimated for the additional repair work that would result from the additional MCAPP II inspections. When Ogden bid the 228 hours for MCAPP II inspections, the activity did not submit a bid for the needed repair work that would be identified during the inspections. The F/A-18 field engineering activity that developed the MCAPP II specification estimated that 3 labor hours of repair work would result from each additional inspection hour. Use of this ratio would have added 864 labor hours to the Ogden average. Navy officials stated that to be conservative in making this adjustment, they used a ratio of 2.1 repair hours for each inspection hour. This ratio was based on the approved labor hours for inspections and the resulting repair work on Ogden’s five completed land-based F/A-18s. While the second and third adjustments appear logical, we could not determine whether Ogden would have needed all of the additional time related to these adjustments. As previously discussed, North Island reduced both its turnaround time and labor hours for MCAPP II aircraft. We did not analyze the two specifications to determine if there were changes that might have reduced the production time at Ogden as it had of North Island. The Navy, as previously noted, did not adjust Ogden’s hours to reflect improved performance normally expected from the learning curve as a depot gains experience with a new workload. DCAA officials told us learning curve analyses are routine in their normal bid proposal evaluations. Learning curve theory states that, for repetitive tasks, as quantities double, the time to perform a task reduces at relatively constant percentages. Over time, the quantities required to reach a doubling can become very large, causing an apparent significant slowing of the rate of learning. On the F/A-18 MCAPP, North Island would have already experienced a significant amount of learning due to the quantities performed. Ogden, on the other hand, having just begun the program should have been expected to experience significant learning (decreases in hours) if the program had continued. According to DCAA officials, in projecting future labor-hour requirements at Ogden, use of a learning curve would have been appropriate since Ogden’s hours for its first few aircraft were being compared with those of North Island, which already had many years performance experience. Navy officials stated that the data on approved labor hours provided by DCMC provided no indication of a learning curve because so few aircraft had been completed. As the starting point for North Island, the Navy used the 5,684 average labor hours expended on the last 6 completed F/A-18s at North Island. All six F/A-18s were carrier-based aircraft, and all were repaired using the MCAPP II specification. The labor-hour average for these aircraft represents a significant decrease in the historical labor hours expended by North Island for MCAPP work. For example, in fiscal year 1994, North Island completed 82 MCAPPs at an average of 7,299 labor hours. The 5,684 labor-hour average for the last 6 completed aircraft represents an average decrease of 1,618 labor hours, or 22 percent less than each completed MCAPP I, even though the MCAPP II specifications require additional hours for inspection and repairs. North Island officials attributed labor-hour reductions to process improvements identified as a result of the public-private competition for F/A-18 MCAPPs. After the competition, North Island made a detailed review of its F/A-18 repair operations with a view to reducing costs, including visits to Ogden to review that depot’s processes and procedures. Although North Island lost the competition, the changes were incorporated into the depot’s operations for the F/A-18 core aircraft that were not included in the competition package. Changes that reduced labor and processing time included establishing central approval authority for recommended repair tasks, conducting daily progress meetings between the managers and artisans at the site of each aircraft in the plant, reducing component repair time by only repairing the items needed for safe operation instead of completely overhauling the entire component, and moving work crews to each aircraft as work progressed instead of physically moving the aircraft to different work stations. North Island data indicated that repair costs for the six MCAPPs used as a basis for the Navy’s analysis were 37 percent below previous F/A-18 MCAPP costs at this depot. The Navy made 2 adjustments to the North Island 5,684 labor-hour average. First, it reduced the average by 493 hours to account for the labor hours used to repair components. Ogden replaces broken components but does not repair them. The adjustment was less than the average labor hours historically used for component repairs. However, the Navy stated that North Island adopted new repair practices that reduced component repairs. We noted that the Ogden labor hours included some off-equipment component repair work, but these hours were not separately identified for purposes of the Navy analysis. Navy officials said they do not classify this work as depot-level repair; furthermore, they noted that Ogden had not been approved by the Navy to do any depot-level component rework. The second adjustment was made because Ogden’s five aircraft used in the comparison were land-based and North Island’s six aircraft were carrier-based. The Navy stated that historical data at North Island showed that land-based F/A-18 MCAPPs on average require 27.5 percent fewer labor hours than carrier-based F/A-18s because of fewer corrosion and structure problems. To estimate the labor hours that North Island would have used if all aircraft had been land-based, the Navy reduced the average by 27.5 percent, or 1,430 labor hours. To differentiate between land-based and carrier-based aircraft, the Navy used as a measure the number of catapult launches. Aircraft with at least 200 catapult launches were said to be carrier-based and those with less were said to be land-based. We identified several factors that would question the appropriateness of the Navy’s large reduction of North Island labor hours based upon its carrier- versus land-based analysis. For example, Ogden was operating under different instructions from the Navy regarding how to define a carrier-based aircraft. Thus, Ogden incurred additional labor hours for inspections using criteria defined in the MCAPP inspection procedures even though the aircraft would not have qualified as a carrier-based aircraft using the 200 catapult launch criteria. Additionally, the 27.5-percent reduction was not well-supported based on an analysis of North Island data. We also noted that at the time the Navy collected data for its analysis, Ogden had already repaired several aircraft that had over 200 catapult launches. The Ogden data showed a 7-percent increase in hours for carrier-based aircraft. Further, in isolating the relative influence of various factors on the number of labor hours required to perform an MCAPP, we found that other factors such as number of flying hours and time since previous major repair appeared to be much more statistically meaningful indicators of how many hours would be required to conduct an MCAPP. The Navy did not ask DCAA to review the proposed labor hours or to determine if its adjustments to those hours were supported. Navy officials noted that this was consistent with the process used in the original competition in which DCAA assessed rates and Naval Air Systems Command assessed labor hours. However, we noted that DCAA’s audit reports of Ogden and North Island’s original bids included evaluations of both rates and hours. DCAA was responsible for ensuring that bids prepared by public depots included all relevant costs. With labor-hour estimates determined, the Navy then estimated the rates, or cost per hour, to perform MCAPP work at Ogden and at North Island. To do this, the Navy asked DCAA to review actual F/A-18 costs at both depots and estimate actual rates for fiscal year 1995 work. The Navy requested DCAA to complete its review and report the results in less than 1 week. Although DCAA complied with the request, the resulting reports were highly qualified. DCAA reported that its review was limited to verifying reported actual cost information and making an estimate of actual costs for the next year. DCAA reported that it did not have sufficient time to perform the procedures necessary to comply with generally accepted government auditing standards. DCAA officials stated that in at least one case their analysis was based on incomplete data. DCAA initially reported that Ogden’s expected actual hourly rate for fiscal year 1995 for F/A-18 MCAPP work was $81.00. After considering additional information provided by Ogden officials, DCAA revised its estimate to $68.83. In its analysis, the Navy used the $68.83 rate for Ogden with no adjustments. DCAA officials later reported that the Ogden rate should have been $61.68. They stated that the initial rate estimate did not fully discount the impacts of first-year training and the Navy requirement to perform wing removals and reinspection on several aircraft. DCAA reported that North Island’s expected actual hourly rate for fiscal year 1995 for F/A-18 MCAPP work was $67.89. In its analysis, the Navy made several adjustments that reduced the DCAA estimated rate to $62.86, a $5.03 reduction. Navy officials stated that most of the reduction was made to provide for differences between Ogden and North Island in the accounting of certain F/A-18 material costs. Under the contract, some F/A-18 material is provided to Ogden at no cost as government-furnished material. This same material is included in North Island’s costs. The adjustments account for these differences as well as for a minor error in the accounting for building depreciation at North Island. In estimating rates at Ogden and North Island, the Navy did not fully adjust for extra costs Ogden incurred from: (1) operating under DCMC contract administration rather than a less costly interservice support agreement, (2) first-year training because the F/A-18 workload was new, (3) Navy delays in providing spare parts and approving maintenance procedures, or (4) conducting the Navy-required wing removal and reinspection procedure on several aircraft that revealed no quality problems. Navy officials stated that (1) despite the higher cost under DCMC contract management, they had a contract with Ogden that required the use of DCMC contract administrators; (2) adjustments for first-year training and reinspection costs were included in the $68.83 qualified rate estimate provided by DCAA; and (3) Ogden did not incur increased labor cost while awaiting spare parts and that repair approval procedures were timely. To arrive at the estimated cost to the government for MCAPP work at Ogden, the Navy multiplied Ogden’s adjusted average labor hours by the DCAA rate. The result was $270,502. The Navy added $9,000 to account for MCAPP II equipment that the Navy said Ogden would need to perform MCAPP II inspections. The $9,000 was calculated by dividing the $207,000 cost of the machinery by the minimum 23 F/A-18 MCAPP IIs that would be performed in fiscal year 1995. For North Island, the Navy multiplied North Island’s adjusted average labor hours by the adjusted DCAA rate. The result was $236,416, or $34,086 less than Ogden. Although the Navy’s decision to move F/A-18 MCAPP work from Ogden to North Island was based primarily on the cost and schedule differences discussed above, the Navy analysis also noted other costs associated with having MCAPP work performed at two locations. The Navy, with DOD concurrence, is requiring that F/A-18 core repair capability be maintained at a Navy depot. Thus, when Ogden won the F/A-18 competition, the Navy did not send all F/A-18 MCAPPs to the Air Force depot. Instead, North Island performed about half of the MCAPPs to maintain a Navy core capability to repair the aircraft. The Navy identified six factors associated with performing F/A-18 work at two depots that increase the total cost of the work. The Navy estimated that these factors add $43,000 to the government’s cost for each F/A-18 MCAPP accomplished at Ogden. According to the Navy, the additional costs are eliminated by consolidating all F/A-18 MCAPP work at one site. We agree there are additional costs to the government when the same work is performed at two depots. As a result of its recognition of the advantages of single-siting depot maintenance workload, in recent years DOD has single-sited numerous depot maintenance workloads that had previously been split among two or more depot activities. Nonetheless, our review indicated that quantifying these costs is difficult, and in most cases, the Navy overestimated the amounts. The six cost factors identified in the Navy’s analysis are discussed below. The Navy estimated that the difference in the days required to complete MCAPP work at Ogden and North Island would cost the government $11,000 in additional depreciation costs for each MCAPP performed by Ogden. This amount was based on Ogden’s bid of 143 days to perform an MCAPP and North Island’s bid of 110 days. As discussed earlier, we believe the Navy’s use of this factor was inappropriate. North Island’s bid reflected a substantial reduction from its yearly average and assumed that recent reductions in turnaround times would be maintained. Ogden’s bid, on the other hand, reflected delays and other factors experienced during its first year that should have been reduced or eliminated in subsequent years. The Navy estimated that engineering support costs provided to Ogden added $8,000 to the cost of each MCAPP. However, this is not an additional cost since similar engineering support is required regardless of where the repair work is performed. The Navy estimated that $1,600 in added costs per MCAPP resulted from the Navy having an on-site representative at Ogden to help oversee and monitor work. We noted that the Navy elected to have an on-site representative at Ogden, even though the contract did not require one. Also, it is not clear that all costs associated with this function were added costs to the government since the on-site representatives were from the North Island cognizant field activity and were assigned F/A-18 work regardless of where the work was performed. Travel and per-diem costs were, however, attributable to the Ogden contract. The Navy estimated that the cost of having DCMC administer the contract at Ogden added $15,700 to the cost of each MCAPP. While we did not verify these costs, we agree that if correct, the Navy’s chosen method of contract administration at Ogden was costly. However, the Navy did not have to use DCMC to administer the contract at Ogden. The F/A-18 workload could have been administered at less cost through an interservice support agreement, as called for in the DOD Cost Comparability Handbook. Thus, it was inappropriate in this case to include the DCMC contract administration costs as a differential factor for purposes of the F/A-18 analysis. The Navy estimated that the additional material costs for the Aviation Supply Office to support MCAPP work at two locations was $5,750 for each MCAPP completed by Ogden. We did not verify the Navy’s estimate of the cost. However, we noted that the Air Force and the Navy were negotiating a no-cost contract modification that would have allowed Ogden to use the Air Force supply system for the option years. While Ogden would have had to continue to rely on the Aviation Supply Office for reparable components not available through the Air Force system, its reliance on the Navy system should have been significantly reduced. The Navy estimated that the additional cost to fly each F/A-18 from Ogden to North Island was $1,090. We believe that this is not an additional cost because an aircraft should be flown from its squadron to the depot and back. Also, F/A-18s from East Coast locations would incur less costs by flying to Ogden rather than to North Island due to geographic differences. Although we could not validate most of the Navy’s estimates of specific costs associated with maintaining the F/A-18 workload at two different locations, we recognize that in recent years DOD has identified advantages from eliminating redundancies in its depot maintenance workload capability and has consolidated many depot workloads formerly accomplished in multiple locations at a single site. In general, we have supported such consolidations. The Navy made a 27.5-percent downward adjustment to North Island’s labor hours based on limited sample data. Using more current and complete data would have significantly reduced the adjustment. Without this adjustment, the Navy’s analysis would have shown North Island’s costs to be higher than Ogden’s. To determine North Island’s MCAPP labor hours, the Navy used North Island’s recent experience performing MCAPP IIs on five carrier-based aircraft. These MCAPPs reflected significant labor-hour reductions from historical levels. Ogden’s labor hours were based on its experience performing the original MCAPP work on five land-based aircraft. To adjust for any differences between land-based and carrier-based aircraft, the Navy compared labor hours on a sample of land- and carrier-based F/A-18 MCAPPs performed at North Island during the first 6 months of fiscal year 1994. The sampled MCAPPs were prior to process improvements at North Island that significantly reduced labor hours and prior to MCAPP II work. A comparison of labor-hour costs for all financially completed F/A-18 MCAPPs at North Island in fiscal year 1994 would have reduced the downward adjustment from 27.5 to 14 percent. Using a comparison of the last 6 months of fiscal year 1994, which reflects more of the current MCAPP II work, the downward adjustment would have been even less. To test the basis for the large labor-hour adjustment for carrier-based aircraft, we analyzed the approved labor hours for completing MCAPPs at Ogden for both carrier-based and land-based aircraft. We noted there was only a 7-percent difference. To understand further the relationship between catapult launches and labor hours, we also performed a regression analysis, comparing North Island catapult launches and hours, to determine how much of the change in hours is explained by the change in catapult launches. The resulting correlation was approximately 9 percent. This means that only 9 percent of the change in hours is explained in catapult launches. In other words, 91 percent of the change in hours is related to factors other than number of catapult launches, such as number of flying hours and age of the aircraft. We also performed an additional review of the hours and numbers of catapult launches. That analysis indicated that there is not a strong relationship between the number of catapult launches and the hours required for MCAPP work. We recomputed the Navy’s analysis using a 14-percent downward adjustment. As shown in appendix III, the recomputed Navy analysis shows Ogden’s cost is $272,900 and North Island’s cost is $275,900 for an F/A-18 MCAPP. Navy officials concurred with the analysis using a larger sample size provided the sample was based on all labor completed aircraft, not the more inclusive financially completed aircraft. The Navy officials commented that by using labor completed aircraft the downward adjustment would be 16.7 percent rather than 14 percent—making Ogden’s cost slightly higher. However, since labor complete figures do not capture the final total labor hours that are included in financially complete figures, the financially completed measure is more commonly used. Additionally, as previously noted, our analysis of Ogden’s labor-hour differential between carrier-based and land-based aircraft showed only a 7-percent difference. The Ogden total, shown in appendix III, included $2,379 that the Navy added for equipment that Ogden would have to purchase for MCAPP II inspections. Navy officials stated that including the equipment cost was appropriate because the contract required the equipment for the performance of MCAPP II. Ogden officials stated that they did not believe the equipment adjustment was appropriate. They noted that similar equipment had been called for as part of the MCAPP I work. However, because of the infrequency of the repair requirement for components needing the equipment, the Navy had determined it to be more economical to send the parts to North Island rather than purchase the equipment for Ogden. It is not clear why this same procedure would not have been used for MCAPP II repairs at Ogden. The recomputed Navy analysis in appendix III shows Ogden’s cost was slightly less than North Island’s. Further, if DCAA’s revised labor rate of $61.68 had been used, Ogden’s per-aircraft cost would have been more than $30,000 less per aircraft. Nonetheless, the decision may still have been made to move the workload back to North Island due to the Navy’s assessment regarding potential cost savings from consolidation. We performed a separate analysis comparing estimated costs for performing MCAPP work at Ogden and North Island using (1) the most current data available at the time of our review in March 1995, (2) actual labor hours expended by Ogden and North Island for completed MCAPPs for carrier-based F/A-18s, and (3) actual rates at Ogden and North Island based on actual costs for completed F/A-18 MCAPPs. This analysis is summarized in appendix IV. We adjusted North Island labor hours to account for the labor hours used for concurrent repair of components. We adjusted Ogden labor hours to estimate the additional labor hours required to perform MCAPP II work. Because we compared only carrier-based aircraft completed by each depot, we did not make an adjustment for differences in the proportion of carrier-based and land-based F/A-18s at each depot. We made two estimates of the total cost to the government using the adjusted labor-hour estimates and two different rate estimates. The first estimate used the actual rate at each activity for F/A-18 MCAPPs completed in fiscal year 1995. The second estimate used the actual rate at each activity adjusted for differences in accounting for material costs, the cost of Ogden F/A-18 work that was outside of normal MCAPP requirements, and the additional cost of contract administration at Ogden in dealing with DCMC. Navy officials state that since Ogden’s contract was structured with DCMC as the administrator, an adjustment is not necessary. Using the actual rates, the analysis showed that the cost to the government for F/A-18 MCAPPs was less at North Island. Using the adjusted rates, the analysis showed that the cost was less at Ogden. We did not include in the analysis an estimate for the added costs to the government from having two depots perform F/A-18 work. Also, our analysis did not account for all differences in the work historically performed at the two depots because some differences cannot be accurately quantified. Title 10 U.S.C. 2469 contains provisions that restrict the movement of depot-level maintenance work from one depot to another or to the private sector if the value of the work is $3 million dollars or more. The legislation requires that before such work is moved, the Secretary of Defense must ensure that the change is made using (1) merit-based selection procedures for competitions among all DOD depot-level activities or (2) competitive procedures for competitions among private and public sector entities. Since the value of the F/A-18 MCAPP work moved from Ogden to North Island exceeded $3 million, the decision was subject to the provisions of the legislation. In a December 20, 1994, letter, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics confirmed that he had reviewed the Navy’s decision and supporting analysis. The letter stated that there were only two DOD depot maintenance activities capable of accomplishing the MCAPP work, Ogden and North Island, and that the Navy had performed a merit-based analysis and selection by evaluating proposals from these activities using quality, schedule, and cost criteria. The Deputy Under Secretary stated that the decision was based on the best value to the government and satisfied the requirements of section 2469. Our review indicated that DOD has not developed guidance implementing the legislation that specifically defines the steps, processes, and analyses required for merit-based selection. In other words, the services do not have defined guidance on what they must do to ensure that decisions to move depot workload are based on merit-based selection procedures. Without such guidance, it appears that any selection decision using reasonable criteria and accurate data could be considered merit-based. In the absence of guidance, the Navy established a process it believed was merit-based by using quality, schedule, and cost criteria in comparing F/A-18 MCAPP work at Ogden and North Island. However, our review indicated the Navy’s implementation of that process had a number of shortcomings. For example, as we discussed previously, the Navy did not use the most current and complete data available in determining labor-hour differences between carrier- and land-based aircraft. Using more current and complete data significantly impacts the Navy’s analysis. In addition, the Navy only allowed DCAA 1 week to determine the rates that were used in the cost comparison. DCAA qualified the information provided to the Navy at the time and subsequent DCAA analyses have resulted in different rate estimates. Further, the Navy analysis did not adjust for the extra costs incurred by Ogden in operating under DCMC contract administration even though the work could have been performed through an interservice support agreement at less cost. The Deputy Under Secretary stated in the December letter that Ogden and North Island were the only activities considered in the selection decision because they were the only DOD activities capable of performing the F/A-18 MCAPP work. We would agree that at the time of the decision, Ogden and North Island were the only DOD activities performing F/A-18 MCAPP work. However, we question whether Ogden and North Island are the only DOD activities capable of performing the work. Other Air Logistics Centers and Naval Aviation Depots routinely provide depot-level maintenance on several other types of fighter and attack aircraft. While these activities may not have all of the equipment and skills in place to start MCAPP work immediately, it would appear reasonable that with some preparation, other DOD activities could perform the work. In view of the requirement to use merit-based selection procedures among all depot-level activities, other Air Logistics Centers, and Naval Aviation Depots could have been considered in the overall analysis. However, even if other activities had been considered, it is uncertain whether any would have submitted a proposal, and we recognize that start-up costs may have prevented other activities from being competitive. We recommend that the Secretary of Defense develop and implement guidance on using merit-based selection procedures when moving depot workload as prescribed by title 10 U.S.C. 2469. We provided a draft of this report to DOD for comment. DOD provided official oral comments. OSD officials agreed with the report’s overall conclusion that the F/A-18 MCAPP workload should be single-sited and also agreed with the recommendation. They stated that events discussed in this report demonstrate the difficulties created when one service’s depot is pitted against another service’s depot in a competitive environment. However, at the same time, they agreed that this case also demonstrates the potential cost savings that can be generated when competition motivates public depots to implement efficiencies by reengineering depot maintenance processes and workloads. Air Force officials indicated overall concurrence with the report. Navy officials agreed with the overall conclusion that single siting all F/A-18 depot workload is in the best interest of the Navy. However, they raised concerns that the report did not accurately characterize the reasons why there were differences between their and our analyses. They stated that the Navy’s analysis was based on the best information available at the time. We revised the report to reflect the Navy’s concerns by more clearly explaining the reasons for the differences between their analyses and ours. Appendix I describes our scope and methodology. As arranged with your staff, unless you announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, the Air Force, and the Navy. Copies will also be made available to others on request. Please contact me on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report were Julia Denman, Gary Phillips, James Ellis, and Donald Lentz. To address our objectives, we performed audit work at the activities involved with the decision to move F/A-18 Modification, Corrosion, and Paint Program work: the Naval Air Systems Command, Washington, D.C.; the Ogden Air Logistics Center, Ogden, Utah; the North Island Naval Aviation Depot, San Diego, California; and the Defense Contract Audit Agency, Salt Lake City, Utah, and San Diego, California. At each activity, we interviewed responsible agency officials and examined documents and other data related to the decision. To identify the adjustments that were made to Ogden’s and North Island’s costs, we reviewed documentation supporting the Navy’s cost analysis and discussed with Navy officials the reasons for and the methodology used for each adjustment. To determine whether the data used in the analysis was accurate and verifiable, we examined source documents supporting the data and performed independent analyses to assess the accuracy of the data and the adjustments made to the data. In preparing our separate cost analysis, we obtained the most current data available based on actual costs for completed work in fiscal year 1995 and made adjustments based on supportable differences in operations at Ogden and North Island. In considering whether the decision to move the F/A-18 work was a merit-based decision as required by law, we reviewed the analysis supporting the Navy’s decision in view of the language in section 2469 of title 10, U.S.C., as amended by section 338 of the fiscal year 1995 National Defense Authorization Act. We also discussed the matter with Navy officials. Our examination and analyses used cost data reported by the Air Forces’ Depot Maintenance Automated Data Systems and the Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command Industrial Financial Management System. These standardized, automated cost accounting systems provide the official cost information for the services’ depot operations. We did not make an independent assessment of the reliability of the data reported by these systems. In addition, it should be noted that the Air Force and the Navy cost systems are not compatible. There are differences between the systems in the way costs are collected and accounted for. Although we made some adjustments in the data used, we cannot state with certainty that the data used, even with the adjustments, is directly comparable and consistent. Thus, the results of our analysis must be viewed with this limitation. Our review was conducted between January and August 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Excludes one aircraft the Navy included in its analysis as an MCAPP II that was actually an MCAPP I. North Island F/A-18s were repaired using the MCAPP II specification and Ogden F/A-18s were repaired using the MCAPP I specification. The adjustment estimates the labor hours needed for Ogden to perform the additional MCAPP II inspections and repair work. The adjustment provides for North Island repairing some components that are provided to Ogden as government-furnished equipment. Rates are the actual rates for completed F/A-18 MCAPPs in fiscal year 1995. The adjustment to North Island’s rate reduces the rate to account for concurrent repair of components and other material provided at no cost to Ogden. The adjustment to Ogden’s rate reduces the rate to account for extra work (wing drops) performed outside of the normal MCAPP work and to account for the estimated extra cost incurred in dealing with the contract administrator, the Defense Contract Management Command. The total cost estimates were computed by multiplying the adjusted labor hours for each activity by the rate estimates for each activity. For Ogden, $2,379 was added to each result to account for the cost of equipment needed to perform MCAPP II work. This amount was determined by dividing the cost of the equipment by the minimum aircraft that would be completed during the 4 option years of the contract. The total cost estimates do not include any estimates for additional costs to the government associated with performing work at two locations. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Navy's decision to move F/A-18 depot maintenance work from the Ogden Air Logistics Center to the North Island Naval Aviation Depot, focusing on the cost and performance indicators used to justify the move of F/A-18 repair activities from Ogden to North Island. GAO found that: (1) it is difficult to compare F/A-18 modification, corrosion, and paint program cost and performance data at North Island and Ogden because the Navy does not use the most current information when making adjustments for the amount of work completed at each depot; (2) based on its analysis, Ogden's maintenance costs are slightly lower, but the Department of Defense's (DOD) decision to retain F/A-18 repair capability at North Island is more cost-effective for workload consolidation efforts; and (3) DOD needs to define the steps, processes, analyses, and validation procedures for its future depot-maintenance decisions. |
Photos of several of the victims, left near Union Hill Road as a memorial (WSYX/WTTE)
UPDATE: Authorities have released the names of all the victims in the southern Ohio murders after notifying family members.
The victims are:
Christopher Rhoden, Sr., 40 years old
Dana Rhoden, 37 years old
Clarence "Frankie" Rhoden, 21 years old
Hanna Rhoden, 19 years old
Christoper Rhoden, Jr., 16 years old
Gary Rhoden, 38 years old
Kenneth Rhoden, 44 years old
Hannah Gilley, 20 years old
Authorities say the bodies have been transferred to the Hamilton County Coroner's Office, where the same pathologist will perform all of the autopsies this weekend. The AG and Pike County Sheriff also say work at each of the crime scenes has been completed.
The family pastor, Phil Fulton, previously told ABC 6/FOX 28 Dana worked at an area nursing home, and he believed she got off work around 11:00 Thursday night. According to their Facebook pages, Frankie, Hanna, and Chris Rhoden Jr. were Dana's children. Frankie had two young children, and was engaged to Hannah Gilley, the mother of his youngest child according to their Facebook accounts.
Earlier Reporting
In a statement ready by a victim's advocacy group, the Rhoden family expressed their thanks to the community "for all the outpouring of prayers and support for the family" and asked that everyone keep them in their prayers. They also thanked law enforcement and first responders for their work.
Cincinnati-area businessman Jeff Ruby is now offering $25,000 for information leading to an arrest, according to Attorney General Mike DeWine.
The Attorney General released a statement Saturday saying no arrests have been made in the case and the investigation is ongoing. Stay with ABC 6/FOX 28 for the latest on this developing story.
PIKE COUNTY, Ohio -- At least eight people from the same family are dead after what authorities described as "execution-style" murders in the Peebles, Ohio area.
Officials say all the victims were members of the Rhoden family. Among the eight dead, one was a teen. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine described it as a "grisly scene," as all the victims were shot in the head. Three of the homes were on the property while another was a few miles away.
DeWine said none of the victims committed suicide.
Some of them were killed in bed, including a mother who was next to her four-day-old baby.
Pike County Sheriff Charles Reader said the newborn was one of three children who survived, along with a six-month-old and a three-year-old.
DeWine warned other members of the Rhoden family to "be careful and use caution while individuals are still out there," as the suspect(s) remain at-large.
Remaining family members have taken refuge at an area church. Their pastor suggested they be armed if they decided to leave.
The Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, who will lead the investigation, have 30 processing four different crime scenes after Pike County Sheriff's Office requested assistance.
Investigators say they have yet to identify a motive.
Late this Thursday morning, Governor John Kasich tweeted his response to the shooting, saying "Reports were are receiving from Peebles are tragic beyond comprehension. We'll continue to monitor this closely and the state will work with local law enforcement however we can." He signed the tweets "John" indicating the Governor himself wrote the tweets.
The FBI tells ABC 6/FOX 28 they are keeping a close eye on the situation. "We have offered assistance and are monitoring the situation in Pike County," said Todd Lindgren, public information officer for FBI office in Cincinnati.
Our sister station WKRC in Cincinnati reports several people were found shot to death in the area of Union Hill Road in Peebles, which is on the border of Adams and Pike Counties. This is a rural area in southern Ohio.
WKRC reports at least seven family members were found shot to death, and police are still looking for the person responsible.
Peebles High School and Elementary School were on lockdown as authorities search the area.
Western Pike Local Schools were cleared to hold their scheduled afternoon activities as they were on a partial lockdown. They and other districts monitored the situation and await word if the teen killed is one of their students.
The Ohio Attorney General has set up a hotline regarding the homicides. The number is 614-466-3840.
Stay with ABC 6/FOX 28 as we work to get more information on this breaking story.
||||| >>Watch the latest updates in the media player above.
PEEBLES, Ohio -- Investigators completed their work at multiple crime scenes Saturday, the day after a "murderer or murderers" massacred eight members of a Pike County family in a series of targeted, "execution-style" killings, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said.
And, as tips poured in, DeWine and Pike County Sheriff Charles Reader cautioned it may take a while to find the killer or killers, refuting reports that a "person of interest" was in custody.
"We are very early into this investigation," DeWine said.
UPDATE: Pot grow operations found at 3 scenes of Pike County killings; multiple shooters suspected
Seven adults and a 16-year-old boy were shot in the head at four different crime scenes, the sheriff said. Each was a member of the Rhoden family. Many of the victims were in their beds, DeWine said.
DeWine and Reader identified the victims as Hannah Gilley, 20; Christopher Rhoden Sr., 40; Christopher Rhoden Jr. , 16; Clarence "Frankie" Rhoden, 20; Dana Rhoden, 37; Gary Rhoden, 38; Hanna Rhoden, 19 and Kenneth Rhoden, 44.
Watch a representative for the Rhoden family deliver a statement:
Deputies removed three children from the homes who survived the massacre, Reader said. They are a 4-day-old, a 6-month-old and a 3-year-old. Particularly shocking to DeWine: the 4-day-old's mother was next to the child when she was killed, he said.
"I've served locally for 20 years in law enforcement, and never have I ever imagined such devastation to a family, to a county, to myself or staff," Reader said.
The killings, stunning for any place, reverberated deeply throughout Pike County, a rural area in south-central Ohio where fewer than 30,000 people live.
“(This is) very out of character for our community, but with the ways of the world, the way things are going, I guess maybe we shouldn’t be surprised," Union Hill Church pastor Phil Fulton said. "But we are. This is so tragic.”
The sheriff also said he knew the Rhoden family well: "It's a small county."
Deputies found the bodies in four homes Friday morning just northeast of Peebles, Ohio. Those addresses include 4077, 4199 and 3122 Union Hill Road.
According to Pike County auditor's records, one of those properties is owned by Christopher Rhoden and another is owned by Richard and Melissa Weisel. The third address was not listed in the auditor's database.
Deputies found the eighth and final body at an address on Left Fork Road at another property owned by Christopher Rhoden.
The properties include houses and trailer homes separated by about a mile. DeWine said the crime scenes will remain active "for some time."
'Specific Family That Has Been Targeted'
During a news conference Friday afternoon, both Reader and DeWine emphasized that the shooter or shooters are not in custody.
"Any individuals involved in this are armed and extremely dangerous," Reader said.
"We do not know their location," DeWine said. "We would advise the people of Pike County...to be careful. We're advising the family members to be very careful and take particular caution. This really is a question of public safety. Particularly for any of the Rhoden family."
Later Friday night, though, Reader and DeWine changed course slightly, saying they believed there was no direct threat to the community at large.
"Again, we have a specific family that has been targeted," Reader said. "I don't believe there's any other threat to any members of the community. However, there is a threat there, and I believe that threat to be armed and dangerous."
"We do not know if we are talking about one individual, or two or three or more," DeWine said. He noted there's no indication any of the eight victims died from a suicide.
"We have a murderer or murderers who've done this," he said.
'Just Good People'
The violent crimes were particularly shocking for residents of Rural Pike County, where the crime rate is well below that of the state and country.
"The community is heartbroken -- shocked -- wondering 'how could this possibly happen to us?'" Fulton, the pastor, said.
Those who knew the victims had only good things to tell reporters.
"Dana was a very hardworking lady -- loved her kids, loved her family," Fulton said. "Very outgoing -- just happy-go-lucky, it seems like."
Johnny Gamble is married to Dana's cousin. He called the family "just good people."
Local residents set up a fund for the Rhoden family at First State Bank in Peebles.
"There's three young children there to raise, and in this day and age that is very costly," Sally McDaniel said.
DeWine: Investigation Is Focused, Methodical
Reader said there had been an "overwhelming" number of tips, and DeWine said about 30 people had been interviewed or questioned.
"I wouldn't use the term 'person of interest,'" he said, when asked about reports someone had been taken into custody in connection with the killings.
The investigation is "focused" and "methodical," DeWine said. "It will go wherever the facts tell us. And, you know, there's different theories that we're looking at, or different possibilities based upon some of the different facts that we know, but I really can't say much beyond that."
DeWine also urged patience. "Investigations like this can take a while."
By Saturday evening, investigators had completed their work at the four scenes, according to DeWine. Evidence was being processed at BCI labs.
He said he kept Ohio Gov. John Kasich updated on the investigation; the governor is out of state as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination.
"When people die like that and people bleed, we all do, all over the country," Kasich said Friday in Connecticut. "It’s a terrible, terrible thing, and we’ve got to find out who did this, and again, bring them to justice."
Some deputies in the small Pike County Sheriff's Office had been on duty for 22 hours by Friday night, Reader said. Nearby agencies were called in to assist; Russelville Police Department posted on Facebook saying "Our agency is assisting Pike County Sheriff;'s Office during this tragedy...giving deputies and investigators to away to rest."
Brad Garrett, an ABC News expert and former FBI agent, said law enforcement agents often refer to shooters in cases like this as "family annihilators."
"It's not uncommon for a shooter like this to go from one house to another house to kill everyone that he thinks has harmed him in some form or fashion," Garrett said.
MORE: What might motivate family annihilators?
To see Chopper 9 images of the scenes involved in this case, click or tap the red pins in the map below:
'You Would Have To Be A Monster'
Sally McDaniel said she went numb when she heard the Rhoden family was involved. She owns Hometown Pizza in Peebles, and said the Rhodens would dine there often.
"I knew the girl's father -- I went to school with him -- and they also came in here, so I knew them pretty well," she said.
McDaniel said she brought food to some of the surviving family members as soon as she learned of the shootings. They seemed to be in shock, she said.
"You would have to be a monster to go in and do something like that," she said.
Even though it's about eight miles from the scene, Peebles High School was put on "lockout" as a precautionary measure. This status meant nobody was allowed in or out for about an hour, but school was still in session, officials there said.
The Pike County Sheriff's Office requested state help at 8:20 a.m. Friday, according to spokesman Dan Tierney of the Ohio Attorney General's Office.
WATCH: Sheriff, attorney general detail Pike Co. massacre
Union Hill Road is just off SR-32 about 75 miles east of Cincinnati. The road parallels much of the border between Adams and Pike counties.
The Bureau of Criminal Investigation, crime scene search unit and cyber-crimes unit all had crews at the scenes.
Authorities asked that anyone with information in this case to contact the BCI at 1-800-BCI-OHIO (224-6446) or the Pike County Sheriff's Office at 740-947-2111. ||||| A killer may be on the run in Pike County after eight family members were found shot in the head “execution style” Friday.
According to Pike County Sheriff Charles Reader, seven adults and one teenager were found dead in four homes in the county. Three children, all under the age of three including a newborn, survived.
Seven of the victims were found inside three homes on Union Hill Road. The eighth family member was found dead at a residence several miles away on Left Fork Road.
The victims were identified as members of the Rhoden family.
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said the preliminary investigation reveals that none of the victims killed themselves.
Sheriff Reader said if the shooter or shooters are at large, they should be considered armed and extremely dangerous.
"There may be more than one, there may be three. We just don't know at this point,” DeWine said.
DeWine added that some of the victims were shot while in bed including a mother with her newborn baby next to her.
"It's heartbreaking," DeWine said. "The one mom was killed in her bed with the 4-day-old right there."
Authorities said a motive isn’t clear at this time, but Sheriff Reader said he suspects the Rhoden family may have been targeted due to the fourth crime scene being a distance away.
Sheriff Reader urged other Rhoden family members to take precautions and advised all residents to stay inside and lock their doors.
"This really is a question of public safety, and particularly for any of the Rhoden family," DeWine said.
Authorities didn't release any information on whether there were multiple weapons used or whether anything was missing from the homes.
Friday night, Sheriff Reader announced that no additional victims or crime scenes have been found. DeWine added that authorities have interviewed more than 30 people.
Gov. John Kasich, campaigning in Pennsylvania for his Republican presidential bid, said his office was monitoring the situation in Pike County.
"Reports we are receiving from Peebles are tragic beyond comprehension," Kasich wrote on his Twitter account.
The FBI in Cincinnati also said it was closely monitoring the situation and has offered assistance to the Pike County sheriff's office if needed.
Anyone with information on the homicides can call 1-855-BCI-OHIO (224-6446) or the Pike County Sheriff's Office at 740-947-2111. | Eight people are dead after "execution-style" shootings in rural southern Ohio on Friday, reports WBNS. According to WCPO, the victims in the rampage in Peebles are all members of the Rhoden family. One of the dead is a 16-year-old boy, the AP reports. Multiple homes were involved in what the Ohio attorney general describes as a "grisly scene." A number of the dead were found in bed, including a mother who had been sleeping with her 4-day-old baby. The baby survived. The shootings took place at four homes—three within a few miles of each other and the fourth within 30 miles. No arrests have been made, and police are unclear even how many shooters there were. None people found dead appear to have killed themselves, which means the shooter or shooters may still be on the loose. If that's the case, authorities say they are "extremely dangerous." Police say the shootings do not appear random, but no motive has been determined, ABC 6 reports. |
International medical graduates (IMGs) are foreign nationals or U.S. citizens who graduate from a medical school outside of the United States. In 2007, the most recent year for which data are available, there were 902,053 practicing physicians in the United States, and IMGs accounted for 25.3% (228,665) of these. The use of foreign nationals remains a means of providing physicians to practice in underserved areas. This report focuses on those IMGs who are foreign nationals, hereafter referred to as foreign medical graduates (FMGs). Many FMGs first entered the United States to receive graduate medical education and training as cultural exchange visitors through the J-1 cultural exchange program. While there are other ways for FMGs to enter the United States, including other temporary visa programs as well as permanent immigration avenues, this report focuses on FMGs entering through the J-1 program. As exchange visitors, FMGs can remain in the United States on a J-1 visa until the completion of their training, typically for a maximum of seven years. After that time, they are required to return to their home country for at least two years before they can apply to change to another nonimmigrant status or legal permanent resident (LPR) status. Under current law, a J-1 physician can receive a waiver of the two-year home residency requirement in several ways: the waiver is requested by an interested government agency (IGA) or state department of health; the FMG's return would cause extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or child; or the FMG fears persecution in the home country based on race, religion, or political opinion. Most J-1 waiver requests are submitted by an IGA and forwarded to the Department of State (DOS) for a recommendation. If DOS recommends the waiver, it is forwarded to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for final approval. Upon final approval by USCIS, the physician's status is converted to that of an H-1B professional specialty worker. Prior to 2004, J-1 waiver recipients were counted against the annual H-1B cap of 65,000. An IGA may request a waiver of the two-year foreign residency requirement for an FMG by showing that his or her departure would be detrimental to a program or activity of official interest to the agency. In return for sponsorship, the FMG must submit a statement of "no objection" from the government of his or her home country, have an offer of full-time employment, and agree to work in a health professional shortage area or medically underserved area for at least three years. According to USCIS regulations, the FMG must be in status while completing the required term and must agree to begin work within 90 days of receipt of the waiver. If an FMG fails to fulfill the three-year commitment, he or she becomes subject to the two-year home residency requirement and may not apply for a change to another nonimmigrant, or LPR status until meeting that requirement. Although any federal government agency can act as an IGA, the main federal agencies that have been involved in sponsoring FMGs are the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under the "Conrad Program" discussed below, state health departments may also act as IGAs. HHS has begun accepting waivers to primary care physicians only relatively recently. Historically, HHS had been very restrictive in its sponsorship of J-1 waiver requests. HHS emphasized that the exchange visitor program was a way to pass advanced medical knowledge to foreign countries, and that it should not be used to address medical underservice in the United States. HHS' position was that medical underservice should be addressed by programs such as the National Health Service Corps. Prior to December 2002, HHS only sponsored waivers for physicians or scientists involved in biomedical research of national or international significance. In December 2002, HHS announced that it would begin sponsoring J-1 waiver requests for primary care physicians and psychiatrists in order to increase access to healthcare services for those in underserved areas. HHS began accepting waiver applications on June 12, 2003, but suspended its program shortly after for reevaluation. On December 10, 2003, HHS released new program guidelines, and reinstated their program. Established by Congress in 1965, ARC is a joint federal and state entity charged with, among other things, ensuring that all residents of Appalachia have access to quality, affordable health care. The region covered by ARC consists of all of West Virginia and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. ARC will submit a request for a waiver at the request of a state in its jurisdiction. The waiver must be recommended by the governor of the sponsoring state. In return, the FMG must agree to provide primary care for at least 40 hours a week for three years at a health professional shortage area facility. The facility must be a Medicare or Medicaid-certified hospital or clinic that also accepts medically indigent patients. The facility must also prove that it has made a good faith effort to recruit a U.S. physician in the six months preceding the waiver application. In addition, the physician must be licensed by the state in which he or she will be practicing, and must have completed a residency in family medicine, general pediatrics, obstetrics, general internal medicine, general surgery, or psychiatry. The physician must sign an agreement stating that he or she will comply with the terms and conditions of the waiver, and will pay the employer $250,000 if he or she does not practice in the designated facility for three years. On May 17, 2004, the DRA officially began accepting applications for its new J-1 visa waiver program. The DRA includes 240 county or parish areas in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee. The goal of the Authority is to stimulate economic development and foster partnerships that will have a positive impact on the economy of the eight states that make up the Authority. Under the DRA's waiver program, physicians must submit an application processing fee; agree to practice in DRA designated shortage areas for a period of at least three years; and agree to pay $250,000 to the sponsoring facility if they do not fulfill any portion of their commitment, or $6,945 per month for each month they fail to fulfill their requirement. In 1994, Senator Kent Conrad sponsored the provision establishing the J-1 visa waiver program at the state level. The program is commonly referred to as the "Conrad State Program" program after him. Under the original program, participating states were allowed to sponsor up to 20 waiver applications for primary care physicians annually. To date, this provision has been extended several times. In 1996, the program was extended until 2002. Once again in 2002, the program was extended until 2004 and the number of waivers allowed per state was increased to 30. In 2004, Congress extended the Conrad program until June 1, 2006, and expanded the program to allow states to recruit primary care and specialty physicians. Other provisions of the law exempted waiver recipients from the H-1B annual cap, and allowed the states to place up to five physicians in facilities that serve patients living in designated shortage areas without regard to the facility's location. Previously, physicians could only serve in facilities located in designated shortage areas. In 2007, the program was extended through June 1, 2008. The waiver process for states is the same as other IGAs, however administration of the program varies by state. FMGs who are sponsored for a J-1 visa waiver by a state agree to practice medicine in designated shortage areas in the sponsoring state for a period of three to four years. FMGs working in these areas are not only required to meet the general requirements for medical licensing in the United States, but they are also required to meet state-specified licensing criteria. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the J-1 program, states accounted for 90% of waiver requests, and had requested more than 3,000 waivers between 2003 and 2005. Several bills were introduced in the 110 th Congress that would have extended or expanded the Conrad Program. Ultimately, P.L. 110-362 extended the program through March 6, 2009. In an effort to extend the state J-1 waiver program for physicians, Representative Zoe Lofgren introduced H.R. 1127 on February 23, 2009, and it became public law on March 20, 2009. This law extends the waiver provision until September 30, 2009. On July 8, 2009, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced S.Amdt. 1428 to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act ( H.R. 2892 ). The amendment, which passed unanimously on July 9, 2009, would extend the program through September 30, 2012. H.R. 2892 passed the Senate on July 9, 2009. | The Educational and Cultural Exchange Visitor program has become a gateway for foreign medical graduates (FMGs) to gain admission to the United States as nonimmigrants for the purpose of graduate medical education and training. The visa most of these physicians enter under is the J-1 nonimmigrant visa. Under the J-1 visa program, participants must return to their home country after completing their education or training for a period of at least two years before they can apply for another nonimmigrant visa or legal permanent resident (LPR) status, unless they are granted a waiver of the requirement. To qualify for a waiver, a request must be submitted on behalf of the FMG, by an Interested Government Agency (IGA), or a state Department of Health. In exchange, the FMG must agree to work in a designated healthcare professional shortage area for a minimum of three years. The ability of states to request a waiver is known as the "Conrad State Program," and was added temporarily to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in 1994. The "Conrad State Program" has been extended by the past several Congresses. Most recently, the program was extended until September 30, 2009, by P.L. 111-9. This report will be updated as warranted by legislative developments. |
History is a good teacher. To solve the problems of today, it is important to avoid repeating past mistakes. Over the past 12 years, the department has initiated several broad-based departmentwide reform efforts intended to fundamentally reform its financial operations as well as other key business areas, including the Defense Reform Initiative, the Defense Business Operations Fund, and the Corporate Information Management initiative. These efforts, which are highlighted below, have proven to be unsuccessful despite good intentions and significant effort. The conditions that led to these previous attempts at reform remain largely unchanged today. Defense Reform Initiative (DRI). In announcing the DRI program in November 1997, the then Secretary of Defense stated that his goal was “to ignite a revolution in business affairs.” DRI represented a set of proposed actions aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of DOD’s business operations, particularly in areas that had been long-standing problems—including financial management. In July 2000, we reported that while DRI got off to a good start and made progress in implementing many of the component initiatives, it did not meet expected time frames and goals, and the extent to which savings from these initiatives would be realized was yet to be determined. We noted that a number of barriers had kept the department from meeting its specific time frames and goals. The most notable barrier was institutional resistance to change in an organization as large and complex as DOD, particularly in such areas as acquisition, financial management, and logistics, which transcend most of the department’s functional organizations and have been long-standing management concerns. We also pointed out that DOD did not have a clear road map to ensure that the interrelationships between its major reform initiatives were understood and addressed and that it was investing in its highest priority requirements. We are currently examining the extent to which DRI efforts begun under the previous administration are continuing. Defense Business Operations Fund. In October 1991, DOD established a new entity, the Defense Business Operations Fund by consolidating nine existing industrial and stock funds and five other activities operated throughout DOD. Through this consolidation, the fund was intended to bring greater visibility and management to the overall cost of carrying out certain critical DOD business operations. However, from its inception, we reported that the fund did not have the policies, procedures, and financial systems to operate in a businesslike manner. In 1996, DOD announced the fund’s elimination. In its place, DOD established four working capital funds. DOD estimated that for fiscal year 2003 these funds would account for and control about $75 billion. These new working capital funds inherited their predecessor’s operational and financial reporting problems. Our reviews of these funds have found that they still are not in a position to provide accurate and timely information on the results of operations. As a result, working capital fund customers cannot be assured that the prices they are charged for goods and services represent actual costs. Corporate Information Management (CIM). The CIM initiative began in 1989 and was expected to save billions of dollars by streamlining operations and implementing standard information systems to support common business operations. CIM was expected to reform all of DOD’s functional areas—including finance, procurement, material management, and human resources—through consolidating, standardizing, and integrating information systems. DOD also expected CIM to replace approximately 2,000 duplicative systems. Over the years, we made numerous recommendations to improve CIM’s management to help preclude the wasteful use and mismanagement of billion of dollars. However, these recommendations were generally not addressed. Instead, DOD spent billions of dollars with little sound analytical justification. Rather than relying on a rigorous decision-making process for information technology investments—as used in leading private and public organizations we studied, DOD made systems decisions without (1) appropriately analyzing cost, benefits, and technical risks; (2) establishing realistic project schedules; or (3) considering how business process improvements could affect information technology investments. For one effort alone, DOD spent about $700 million trying to develop and implement a single system for the material management business area— but this effort proved unsuccessful. We reported in 1997 that the benefits of CIM had yet to be widely achieved after 8 years of effort and spending about $20 billion. The CIM initiative was eventually abandoned. DOD’s long-standing financial management difficulties have adversely affected the department’s ability to control costs, ensure basic accountability, anticipate future costs and claims on the budget (such as for health care, weapon systems, and environmental liabilities), measure performance, maintain funds control, prevent fraud, and address pressing management issues. In this regard, I would like to briefly highlight three of our recent products that exemplify the adverse impact of DOD’s reliance on fundamentally flawed financial management systems and processes and a weak overall internal control environment. In March of this year, we testified on the continuing problems with internal controls over approximately $64 million in fiscal year 2001 purchase card transactions involving two Navy activities. Consistent with our testimony last July on fiscal year 2000 purchase card transactions at these locations, our follow-up review demonstrated that continuing control problems contributed to fraudulent, improper, and abusive purchases and theft and misuse of government property. We are currently auditing purchase and travel card usage across the department. In July 2001, we reported that DOD did not have adequate systems, controls, and managerial attention to ensure that the $2.7 billion of adjustments affecting closed appropriation accounts made during fiscal year 2000 were legal and otherwise proper. Our review of $2.2 billion of these adjustments found about $615 million (28 percent) of the adjustments should not have been made, including about $146 million that violated specific provisions of appropriations law and were thus illegal. For example, the stated purpose of one adjustment was to charge a $79 million payment made in February 1999 to a fiscal year 1992 research and development appropriation account to correct previous payment recording errors. However, the fiscal year 1992 research and development appropriation account closed at the end of fiscal year 1998—4 months before the $79 million payment was made. Therefore, the adjustment had the same effect as using canceled funds from a closed appropriation account to make the February 1999 expenditure, which is prohibited by the 1990 law. As of April 2002, DOD had reversed 140 of the 162 transactions and provided additional contract documentation for the remaining 22 transactions. However, DOD has yet to complete the reconciliation for the contracts associated with these adjustments and make the correcting entries. DOD has indicated that it will be later this year before the correct entries are made. In June 2001, we reported that DOD’s financial systems could not adequately track and report on whether the $1.1 billion in earmarked funds that the Congress provided to DOD for spare parts and associated logistical support were actually used for their intended purpose. The vast majority of the funds—92 percent—were transferred to the military services operation and maintenance accounts. Once the funds were transferred into the operation and maintenance accounts, the department could not separately track the use of the funds. As a result, DOD lost its ability to assure the Congress that the funds it received for spare parts purchases were used for, and only for, that purpose. Problems with the department’s financial management operations go far beyond its accounting and finance systems and processes. The department continues to rely on a far-flung, complex network of finance, logistics, personnel, acquisition, and other management information systems—80 percent of which are not under the control of the DOD Comptroller—to gather the financial data needed to support the day-to-day management decision making. This network was not designed to be, but rather has evolved into, the overly complex and error-prone operation that exists today, including (1) little standardization across DOD components, (2) multiple systems performing the same tasks, (3) the same data stored in multiple systems, (4) manual data entry into multiple systems, and (5) a large number of data translations and interfaces that combine to exacerbate problems with data integrity. Many of the department’s business operations are mired in old, inefficient processes and legacy systems, some of which go back to the 1950s and 1960s. For example, the department still relies on the Mechanization of Contract Administration Services (MOCAS) system—which dates back to 1968—to process a substantial portion of the contract payment transactions for all DOD organizations. In fiscal year 2001, MOCAS processed an estimated $78 billion in contract payments. Past efforts to replace MOCAS have failed and the current effort has been delayed. As a result, for the foreseeable future, DOD will continue to be saddled with MOCAS. In the 1970s, we issued numerous reports detailing serious problems with the department’s financial management operations. Between 1975 and 1981, we issued more than 75 reports documenting serious problems with DOD’s cost, property, fund control, and payroll accounting systems. In the 1980s, we found that despite the billions of dollars invested in individual systems, these efforts, too, fell far short of the mark, with extensive schedule delays and cost overruns. For example, our 1989 report on eight major DOD system development efforts—including two major accounting systems—under way at that time, showed that system development cost estimates doubled, two of the eight efforts were abandoned, and the remaining six efforts experienced delays of 3 to 7 years. Two recent specific system endeavors that have fallen short of their intended goals are the Standard Procurement System and the Defense Joint Accounting System. Both of these efforts were aimed at improving the department’s financial management and related business operations. Standard Procurement System (SPS). In November 1994, DOD began the SPS program to acquire and deploy a single automated system to perform all contract management-related functions within DOD’s procurement process for all DOD organizations and activities. The laudable goal of SPS was to replace 76 existing procurement systems with a single departmental system. DOD estimated that SPS had a life-cycle cost of approximately $3 billion over a 10-year period. According to DOD, SPS was to support about 43,000 users at over 1,000 sites worldwide and was to interface with key financial management functions such as payment processing. Additionally, SPS was intended to replace the contract administration functions currently performed by MOCAS. Our July 2001 report and February 2002 testimony before this Subcommittee identified weaknesses in the department’s management of its investment in SPS. Specifically: The department had not economically justified its investment in the program because its latest (January 2000) analysis of costs and benefits was not credible. Further, this analysis showed that the system, as defined, was not a cost-beneficial investment. The department was not accumulating actual program costs and therefore, did not know the total amount spent on the program to date, yet life-cycle cost projections had grown from about $3 billion to $3.7 billion. Although the department committed to fully implementing the system by March 31, 2000, this target date had slipped by over 3 ½ years to September 30, 2003, and program officials have recently stated that this date will also not be met. We recommended that the Secretary of Defense make additional investments in SPS conditional upon first demonstrating that the existing version of SPS is producing benefits that exceed costs and that future investment decisions, including those regarding operations and maintenance beyond fiscal year 2001, be based on complete and reliable economic justifications. Defense Joint Accounting System (DJAS). In 1997, DOD selected DJAS to be one of three general fund accounting systems. As originally envisioned, DJAS would perform the accounting for the Army and the Air Force as well as the DOD transportation and security assistance areas. Subsequently, in February 1998, Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) decided that the Air Force could withdraw from using DJAS. DFAS made the decision because either the Air Force processes or the DJAS processes would need significant reengineering to allow for the development of a joint accounting system. As a result, the Air Force was allowed to start development of its own general fund accounting system— General Fund and Finance System—which resulted in the development of a fourth general fund accounting system. In June 2000, the DOD Inspector General reported that DFAS was developing DJAS at an estimated life-cycle cost of about $700 million without demonstrating that the program was the most cost-effective alternative for providing a portion of DOD’s general fund accounting. More specifically, the report stated that DFAS had not developed a complete or fully supportable feasibility study, analysis of alternatives, economic analysis, acquisition program baseline, or performance measures, and had not reengineered business processes. According to data provided by DFAS, for fiscal years 1997-2000 approximately $120 million was spent on the development and implementation of DJAS. However, today DJAS is only being operated at two locations—Ft. Benning, Georgia, and the Missile Defense Agency. According to a DFAS official, DJAS is considered to be fully deployed—which means it is operating at all intended locations. Significant resources—in terms of dollars, time, and people—have been invested in these two efforts, without demonstrated improvement in DOD’s business operations. It is essential that DOD ensure that its investment in systems modernization results in more effective and efficient business operations, since every dollar spent on ill-fated efforts such as SPS and DJAS is one less dollar available for other defense spending priorities. As part of our constructive engagement approach with DOD, the Comptroller General met with Secretary Rumsfeld last summer to provide our perspectives on the underlying causes of the problems that have impeded past reform efforts at the department and to discuss options for addressing these challenges. There are four underlying causes: a lack of sustained top-level leadership and management accountability deeply embedded cultural resistance to change, including military service parochialism and stovepiped operations; a lack of results-oriented goals and performance measures and inadequate incentives for seeking change. Historically, DOD has not routinely assigned accountability for performance to specific organizations or individuals who have sufficient authority to accomplish desired goals. For example, under the CFO Act, it is the responsibility of agency CFOs to establish the mission and vision for the agency’s future financial management. However, at DOD, the Comptroller—who is by statute the department’s CFO—has direct responsibility for only an estimated 20 percent of the data relied on to carry out the department’s financial management operations. The department has learned through its efforts to meet the Year 2000 computing challenge that to be successful, major improvement initiatives must have the direct, active support and involvement of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. In the Year 2000 case, the then Deputy Secretary of Defense was personally and substantially involved and played a major role in the department’s success. Such top- level support and attention helps ensure that daily activities throughout the department remain focused on achieving shared, agencywide outcomes. A central finding from our report on our survey of best practices of world-class financial management organizations—Boeing; Chase Manhattan Bank; General Electric; Pfizer; Hewlett-Packard; Owens Corning; and the states of Massachusetts, Texas, and Virginia— was that clear, strong executive leadership was essential to (1) making financial management an entitywide priority, (2) redefining the role of finance, (3) providing meaningful information to decision makers, and (4) building a team of people that delivers results. DOD’s past experience has suggested that top management has not had a proactive, consistent, and continuing role in building capacity, integrating daily operations for achieving performance goals, and creating incentives. Sustaining top management commitment to performance goals is a particular challenge for DOD. In the past, the average 1.7-year tenure of the department’s top political appointees has served to hinder long-term planning and follow-through. Cultural resistance to change and military service parochialism have also played a significant role in impeding previous attempts to implement broad-based management reforms at DOD. The department has acknowledged that it confronts decades-old problems deeply grounded in the bureaucratic history and operating practices of a complex, multifaceted organization, and that many of these practices were developed piecemeal and evolved to accommodate different organizations, each with its own policies and procedures. For example, as discussed in our July 2000 report, the department encountered resistance to developing departmentwide solutions under the then Secretary’s broad-based DRI. In 1997, the department established a Defense Management Council—including high-level representatives from each of the military services and other senior executives in the Office of the Secretary of Defense—which was intended to serve as the “board of directors” to help break down organizational stovepipes and overcome cultural resistance to change called for under DRI. However, we found that the council’s effectiveness was impaired because members were not able to put their individual military services’ or DOD agencies’ interests aside to focus on departmentwide approaches to long-standing problems. Cultural resistance to change has impeded reforms not only in financial management, but also in other business areas, such as weapon system acquisition and inventory management. For example, as we reported last year, while the individual military services conduct considerable analyses justifying major acquisitions, these analyses can be narrowly focused and do not consider joint acquisitions with the other services. In the inventory management area, DOD’s culture has supported buying and storing multiple layers of inventory rather than managing with just the amount of stock needed. DOD’s past reform efforts have been handicapped by the lack of clear, linked goals and performance measures. As a result, DOD managers lack straightforward road maps showing how their work contributes to attaining the department’s strategic goals, and they risk operating autonomously rather than collectively. In some cases, DOD had not yet developed appropriate strategic goals, and in other cases, its strategic goals and objectives were not linked to those of the military services and defense agencies. As part of our assessment of DOD’s Fiscal Year 2000 Financial Management Improvement Plan, we reported that, for the most part, the plan represented the military services’ and defense components’ stovepiped approaches to reforming financial management and did not clearly articulate how these various efforts would collectively result in an integrated DOD-wide approach to financial management improvement. In addition, we reported that the department’s plan did not include performance measures that could be used to assess DOD’s progress in resolving its financial management problems. DOD officials have informed us that they are now working to revise the department’s approach to this plan so that future years’ updates will reflect a more strategic, departmentwide vision and provide a more effective tool for financial management reform. As it moves to modernize its systems, the department faces a formidable challenge in responding to technological advances that are changing traditional approaches to business management. For fiscal year 2003, DOD’s information technology budgetary request of approximately $26 billion will support a wide range of military operations as well as DOD business functions. As we have reported, while DOD plans to invest billions of dollars in modernizing its financial management and other business support systems, it does not yet have an overall blueprint—or enterprise architecture—in place to guide and direct these investments. As we recently testified, our review of practices at leading organizations showed they were able to make sure their business systems addressed corporate—rather than individual business unit—objectives by using enterprise architectures to guide and constrain investments. Consistent with our recommendation, DOD is now working to develop a financial management enterprise architecture, which is a very positive development. The final underlying cause of the department’s long-standing inability to carry out needed fundamental reform has been the lack of incentives for making more than incremental change to existing “business-as-usual” processes, systems, and structures. Traditionally, DOD has focused on justifying its need for more funding rather than on the outcomes its programs have produced. DOD generally measures its performance by the amount of money spent, people employed, or number of tasks completed. Incentives for its decision makers to implement changed behavior have been minimal or nonexistent. Secretary Rumsfeld perhaps said it best in announcing his planned transformation at DOD: “There will be real consequences from, and real resistance to, fundamental change.” This lack of incentive has perhaps been most evident in the department’s acquisition area. In DOD’s culture, the success of a manager’s career has depended more on moving programs and operations through the DOD process than on achieving better program outcomes. The fact that a given program may have cost more than estimated, taken longer to complete, and not generated results or performed as promised was secondary to fielding a new program. To effect real change, actions are needed to (1) break down parochialism and reward behaviors that meet DOD-wide and congressional goals; (2) develop incentives that motivate decision makers to initiate and implement efforts that are consistent with better program outcomes, including saying “no” or pulling the plug on a system or program that is failing; and (3) facilitate a congressional focus on results-oriented management, particularly with respect to resource-allocation decisions. Recognizing the need for improved financial data to effectively manage the department’s vast operations, Secretary Rumsfeld commissioned an independent study to recommend a strategy for financial management improvements. The report recognized that the department would have to undergo “a radical financial management transformation” and that it would take more than a decade to achieve. The report also noted that DOD’s current financial, accounting, and feeder systems do not provide relevant, reliable, and timely information. Further, the report pointed out that the “support of management decision-making” is generally not an objective of the financially based information currently developed or planned for future development. Additionally, the report stated that although the department had numerous system projects underway, they were narrowly focused, lacked senior management leadership, and were not part of an integrated DOD-wide strategy. The report also noted that the systemic problems discussed were not strictly financial management problems and could not be solved by DOD’s financial community. Rather, the solution would require the “concerted effort and cooperation of cross-functional communities throughout the department.” The report recommended an integrated approach to transform the department’s financial operations. The report noted that its proposed framework would take advantage of certain ongoing improvement actions within the department and provide specific direction for a more coordinated, managed, and results-oriented approach. The proposed course of action for transforming the department’s financial management centered around six broad elements: (1) leadership, (2) incentives, (3) accountability, (4) organizational alignment, (5) changes in certain rules, and (6) changes in enterprise practices. The report referred to its approach as a “twin-track” course of action. The first track employs a DOD-wide management approach to developing standard integrated systems; obtaining relevant, reliable, and timely financial data; and providing incentives for the department to utilize financial data in an efficient and effective way. This track will require a longer time frame and will include establishing a centralized oversight process under the DOD Comptroller for incrementally implementing the recommended structural changes and developing standard, integrated financial systems. The second track focuses on targeting, selecting, and overseeing implementation of a limited number of intraservice/cross-service projects for major cost savings or other high-value benefits under a process led by the DOD Comptroller and assisting the Secretary of Defense in establishing and managing a set of metrics. Prime tools of such improvements would include activity-based costing and benchmarking/best practices analysis to identify cost-saving opportunities. A July 19, 2001, departmental memorandum from Secretary Rumsfeld confirmed that the department needs to develop and implement an architecture for achieving integrated financial and accounting systems in order to generate relevant, reliable, and timely information on a routine basis. Secretary Rumsfeld further reiterated the need for a fundamental transformation of DOD in his “top-down” Quadrennial Defense Review. Specifically, his September 30, 2001, Quadrennial Defense Review Report concluded that the department must transform its outdated support structure, including decades-old financial systems that are not well interconnected. The report summed up the challenge well in stating: “While America’s businesses have streamlined and adopted new business models to react to fast-moving changes in markets and technologies, the Defense Department has lagged behind without an overarching strategy to improve its business practices.” Our experience has shown there are several key elements that collectively would enable the department to effectively address the underlying causes of its inability to resolve its long-standing financial management problems. For the most part these elements are consistent with those discussed in the department’s April 2001 financial management transformation report. These elements, which we believe are key to any successful approach to financial management reform, include addressing the department’s financial management challenges as part of a comprehensive, integrated, DOD-wide business reform; providing for sustained leadership by the Secretary of Defense and resource control to implement needed financial management reforms; establishing clear lines of responsibility, authority, and accountability for such reform tied to the Secretary; incorporating results-oriented performance measures and monitoring tied to financial management reforms; providing appropriate incentives or consequences for action or inaction; establishing and implementing an enterprise architecture to guide and direct financial management modernization investments; and ensuring effective oversight and monitoring. Actions on many of the key areas central to successfully achieving desired financial management and related business transformation goals— particularly those that rely on longer term systems improvements—will take a number of years to fully implement. Secretary Rumsfeld has estimated that his envisioned transformation may take 8 or more years to complete. Our research and experience with other federal agencies have shown that this is not an unrealistic estimate. Additionally, these keys should not be viewed as independent actions, but rather, a set of interrelated and interdependent actions that are collectively critical to transforming DOD’s business operations. Consequently, both long-term actions focused on the Secretary’s envisioned business transformation and short-term actions focused on improvements within existing systems and processes will be critical going forward. Short- term actions in particular will be critical if the department is to achieve the greatest possible accountability over existing resources and more reliable data for day-to-day decision making while longer term systems and business process reengineering efforts are under way. Beginning with the Secretary’s recognition of a need for a fundamental transformation of the department’s business operations and building on some of the work begun under past administrations, DOD has taken a number of positive steps in many of these key areas, but these steps are only a beginning. Challenges remain in each of these key areas that are formidable. As we previously reported, establishing the right goal is essential for success. Central to effectively addressing DOD’s financial management problems will be the recognition that they cannot be addressed in an isolated, stovepiped, or piecemeal fashion separate from the other high-risk areas facing the department. Further, successfully reforming the department’s operations—which consist of people, business processes, and technology—will be critical if DOD is to effectively address the deep- rooted organizational emphasis on maintaining business-as-usual across the department. Financial management is a crosscutting issue that affects virtually all of DOD’s business areas. For example, improving its financial management operations so that they can produce timely, reliable, and useful cost information is essential to effectively measure its progress toward achieving many key outcomes and goals across virtually the entire spectrum of DOD’s business operations. At the same time, the department’s financial management problems—and, most importantly, the keys to their resolution—are deeply rooted in and dependent upon developing solutions to a wide variety of management problems across DOD’s various organizations and business areas. For example, we have reported that many of DOD’s financial management shortcomings were attributable in part to human capital issues. The department does not yet have a strategy in place for improving its financial management human capital. This is especially critical in connection with DOD’s civilian workforce, since DOD has generally done a much better job in conjunction with human capital planning for its military personnel. In addition, DOD’s civilian personnel face a variety of size, shape, skills, and succession- planning challenges that need to be addressed. As we mentioned earlier, and it bears repetition, the department has reported that an estimated 80 percent of the data needed for sound financial management comes from its other business operations, such as its acquisition and logistics communities. DOD’s vast array of costly, nonintegrated, duplicative, and inefficient financial management systems is reflective of its lack of an integrated approach to addressing management challenges. DOD has acknowledged that one of the reasons for the lack of clarity in its reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act has been that most of the program outcomes the department is striving to achieve are interrelated, while its management systems are not integrated. As we discussed previously, the Secretary of Defense has made the fundamental transformation of business practices throughout the department a top priority. In this context, the Secretary established a number of top-level committees, councils, and boards, including the Senior Executive Committee, Business Initiative Council, and Defense Business Practices Implementation Board. The Senior Executive Committee was established to help guide efforts across the department to improve its business practices. This committee—chaired by the Secretary of Defense, and with membership to include the Deputy Secretary, the military service secretaries, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics—was established to function as the “board of directors” for the department. The Business Initiative Council— comprising the military service secretaries and headed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics—was established to encourage the military services to explore new money- saving business practices to help offset funding requirements for transformation and other initiatives. Our research of successful public and private sector organizations shows that such entities, comprised of enterprisewide executive leadership, provide valuable guidance and direction when pursuing integrated solutions to corporate problems. Inclusion of the department’s top leadership should help to break down the cultural barriers to change and result in an integrated DOD approach for business reform. The department’s successful Year 2000 effort illustrated, and our survey of leading financial management organizations captured, the importance of strong leadership from top management. As we have stated many times before, strong, sustained executive leadership is critical to changing a deeply rooted corporate culture—such as the existing “business-as-usual” culture at DOD—and to successfully implementing financial management reform. In the case of the Year 2000 challenge the personal, active involvement of the Deputy Secretary of Defense played a key role in building entitywide support and focus. Given the long-standing and deeply entrenched nature of the department’s financial management problems— combined with the numerous competing DOD organizations, each operating with varying, often parochial views and incentives—such visible, sustained top-level leadership will be critical. In discussing their April 2001 report to the Secretary of Defense on transforming financial management, the authors stated that, “unlike previous failed attempts to improve DOD’s financial practices, there is a new push by DOD leadership to make this issue a priority.” Strong, sustained executive leadership—over a number of years and administrations—will be key to changing a deeply rooted culture. In addition, given that significant investments in information systems and related processes have historically occurred in a largely decentralized manner throughout the department, additional actions will likely be required to implement centralized information technology investment control. In our May 2001 report we recommended that DOD take action to provide senior departmental commitment and leadership through establishment of a enterprisewide steering committee sponsored by the Secretary, that could guide development of a transformation blueprint and provide for centralized control over investments to ensure funding is provided for only those proposed investments in systems and business reforms that are consistent with the blueprint. Absent such a control, DOD runs the serious risk that the fiscal year 2003 information technology budgetary request of approximately $26 billion and future years’ requests will not result in marked improvement in DOD’s business operations. Without such an approach, DOD runs the risk of spending billions of dollars on systems modernization, which continues to perpetuate the existing systems environment that suffers from duplication of systems, limited interoperability, and unnecessarily costly operations and maintenance and will preclude DOD from achieving the Secretary’s vision of improved financial information on the results of departmental operations. Additionally, as previously discussed, the tenure of the department’s top political appointees has generally been short in duration and as a result it is sometimes difficult to maintain the focus and momentum that is needed to resolve the management challenges facing DOD. The resolution of the array of interrelated business system management challenges previously discussed is likely to require a number of years and therefore span several administrations. The Comptroller General has proposed in congressional testimony that one option to consider to address the continuity issue would be the establishment of the position of chief operating officer. This position could be filled by an individual appointed for a set term of 5 to 7 years with the potential for reappointment. Such an individual should have a proven track record as a business process change agent for large, diverse organizations and would spearhead business process transformation across the department. Last summer, when the Comptroller General met with Secretary Rumsfeld, he stressed the importance of establishing clear lines of responsibility, decision-making authority, and resource control for actions across the department tied to the Secretary as a key to reform. As we previously reported, such an accountability structure should emanate from the highest levels and include the secretary of each of the military services as well as heads of the department’s various major business areas. The Secretary of Defense has taken action to vest responsibility and accountability for financial management modernization with the DOD Comptroller. In October 2001, the DOD Comptroller, as previously mentioned, established the Financial Management Modernization Executive and Steering Committees as the governing bodies that oversee the activities related to this modernization effort and also established a supporting working group to provide day-to-day guidance and direction in these efforts. DOD reports that the executive and steering committees met for the first time in January 2002. At the request of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, Senate Committee on Armed Services, we are initiating a review of the department’s efforts to develop and implement an enterprise architecture. As part of the effort, we will be assessing the department’s efforts to align current investments in financial systems with the proposed architecture. It is clear to us that the DOD Comptroller has the full support of the Secretary and that the Secretary is committed to making meaningful change. The key is to translate this support into a funding control mechanism that ensures DOD’s components information technology investments are aligned with the department’s strategic blueprint. Addressing issues such as centralization of authority for information systems investments and continuity of leadership is critical to successful business transformation. To make this work, it is important that the DOD Comptroller have sufficient authority to oversee the investment decisions in order to bring about the full, effective participation of the military services and business process owners across the department. As discussed in our January 2001 report on DOD’s major performance and accountability challenges, establishing a results orientation is another key element of any approach to reform. Such an orientation should draw upon results that could be achieved through commercial best practices, including outsourcing and shared servicing concepts. Personnel throughout the department must share the common goal of establishing financial management operations that not only produce financial statements that can withstand the test of an audit but more importantly, routinely generate useful, reliable, and timely financial information for day- to-day management purposes. In addition, we have previously testified that DOD’s financial management improvement efforts should be measured against an overall goal of effectively supporting DOD’s basic business processes, including appropriately considering related business process system interrelationships, rather than determining system-by-system compliance. Such a results-oriented focus is also consistent with an important lesson learned from the department’s Year 2000 experience. DOD’s initial Year 2000 focus was geared toward ensuring compliance on a system-by-system basis and did not appropriately consider the interrelationships of systems and business areas across the department. It was not until the department, under the direction of the then Deputy Secretary, shifted to a core mission and function review approach that it was able to achieve the desired result of greatly reducing its Year 2000 risk. Since the Secretary has established an overall business process transformation goal that will require a number of years to achieve, going forward it is especially critical for managers throughout the department to focus on specific metrics that, over time, collectively will translate to achieving this overall goal. It is important for the department to refocus its annual accountability reporting on this overall goal of fundamentally transforming the department’s financial management systems and related business processes to include appropriate interim annual measures for tracking progress toward this goal. In the short term, it is important to focus on actions that can be taken using existing systems and processes. It is critical to establish interim measures to both track performance against the department’s overall transformation goals and facilitate near-term successes using existing systems and processes. The department has established an initial set of metrics intended to evaluate financial performance, and it reports that it has seen improvements. For example, with respect to closed appropriation accounts, DOD reported during the first 6 months of fiscal year 2002 a reduction in the dollar value of adjustments to closed appropriation accounts of about 80 percent from the same 6-month period in fiscal year 2001. Other existing metrics concern cash and funds management, contract and vendor payments, and disbursement accounting. We are initiating a review of DOD’s short-term financial management performance metrics and will provide the Subcommittee the results of our review. DOD also reported that it is working to develop these metrics into higher-level measures more appropriate for senior management. We agree with the department’s efforts to expand the use of appropriate metrics to guide its financial management reform efforts. Another key to breaking down the parochial interests and stovepiped approaches that have plagued previous reform efforts is establishing mechanisms to reward organizations and individuals for behaviors that comply with DOD-wide and congressional goals. Such mechanisms should be geared to providing appropriate incentives and penalties to motivate decision makers to initiate and implement efforts that result in fundamentally reformed financial management and other business support operations. In addition, such incentives and consequences are essential if DOD is to break down the parochial interests that have plagued previous reform efforts. Incentives driving traditional ways of doing business, for example, must be changed, and cultural resistance to new approaches must be overcome. Simply put, DOD must convince people throughout the department that they must change from business-as-usual systems and practices or they are likely to face serious consequences, organizationally and personally. Enterprise architecture development, implementation, and maintenance are a basic tenet of effective information technology management. Used in concert with other information technology management controls, an architecture can increase the chances for optimal mission performance. We have found that attempting to modernize operations and systems without an architecture leads to operational and systems duplication, lack of integration, and unnecessary expense. Our best practices research of successful public and private sector organizations has similarly identified enterprise architectures as essential to effective business and technology transformation. Establishing and implementing a financial management enterprise architecture is essential for the department to effectively manage its modernization effort. The Clinger-Cohen Act requires major departments and agencies to develop, implement, and maintain an integrated architecture. As we previously reported, such an architecture can help ensure that the department invests only in integrated, business system solutions and, conversely, will help move resources away from non-value- added legacy business systems and nonintegrated business system development efforts. Without an enterprise architecture to guide and constrain information technology investments, DOD runs the serious risk that its system efforts will perpetuate the existing system environment that suffers from systems duplication, limited interoperability, and unnecessarily costly operations and maintenance. In our May 2001 report, we pointed out that DOD lacks a financial management enterprise architecture to guide and constrain the billions of dollars it plans to spend to modernize its financial management operations and systems. According, we recommended that the department develop and implement an architecture in accordance with DOD’s policies and guidance and that senior management be involved in the investment decision-making process. DOD has awarded a contract for the development of a DOD-wide financial management enterprise architecture to “achieve the Secretary’s vision of relevant, reliable and timely financial information needed to support informed decision-making.” In fiscal year 2002, DOD received approximately $98 million and has requested another $96 million for fiscal year 2003 for this effort. Consistent with the recommendations contained in our January 1999 and May 2001 reports, DOD has begun an extensive effort to document the department’s current “as-is” financial management architecture by identifying systems currently relied upon to carry out financial management operations throughout the department. To date, the department has identified over 1,100 systems that are involved in the processing of financial information. In developing the “as-is” environment DOD has recognized that financial management is broader than just accounting and finance systems. Rather, it includes the department’s budget formulation, acquisition, inventory management, logistics, personnel, and property management systems. In developing and implementing its enterprise architecture, DOD needs to ensure that the multitude of systems efforts currently underway are designed as an integral part of the architecture. As discussed in our May 2001 report, the Army and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) are investing in financial management solutions that are estimated to cost about $700 million and $900 million, respectively. Further, the Naval Audit Service has reported that the Navy has efforts underway which are estimated to cost about $2.5 billion. These programs—commercial enterprise resource planning (ERP) products—are intended to implement different commercially available products for automating and reengineering various operations within the organization. Among the functions that these ERP programs address is financial management. However, since DOD has yet to develop and implement its architecture, there is no assurance that these separate efforts will result in systems that are compatible with the DOD designated architecture. For example, the Naval Audit Service reported that there are interoperability problems with the four Navy ERP efforts and the entire program lacks appropriate management oversight. The effort to develop a financial management architecture will be further complicated as the department strives to develop multiple architectures across its various business areas and organizational components. For example, in June 2001, we recommended that the DLA develop an architecture to guide and constrain its Business Systems Modernization acquisition. Additionally, we recommended that the department develop a DOD-wide logistics management architecture that would promote interoperability and avoid duplication among the logistics modernization efforts now under way in DOD component organizations, such as DLA and the military services. As previously discussed, control and accountability over investments are critical. DOD can ill-afford another CIM, which invested billion of dollars but did not result in systems that were capable of providing DOD management and the Congress with more accurate, timely, and reliable information of the results of the department’s vast operations. To better control DOD’s investments we recommended in our May 2001 report, that until the architecture is developed investments should be limited to (1) deployment of systems that have already been fully tested and involve no additional development or acquisition cost, (2) stay-in-business maintenance needed to keep existing systems operational, (3) management controls needed to effectively invest in modernized systems, and (4) new systems or existing system changes that are congressionally directed or are relatively small, cost effective, and low risk and can be delivered in a relatively short time frame. Ensuring effective monitoring and oversight of progress will also be key to bringing about effective implementation of the department’s financial management and related business process reform. We have previously testified that periodic reporting of status information to department top management, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Congress, and the audit community is another key lesson learned from the department’s successful effort to address its Year 2000 challenge. Previous submissions of the department’s Financial Management Improvement Plan have simply been compilations of data call information on the stovepiped approaches to financial management improvements received from the various DOD components. It is our understanding that DOD plans to change its approach and anchor the plan in the enterprise architecture. If the department’s future plans are upgraded to provide a departmentwide strategic view of the financial management challenges facing the department, along with planned corrective actions, these plans can serve as an effective tool not only to help guide and direct the department’s financial management reform efforts, but also to help maintain oversight of the department’s financial management operations. Going forward, this Subcommittee’s oversight hearings, as well as the active interest and involvement of the defense appropriations and authorization committees, will continue to be key to effectively achieving and sustaining DOD’s financial management and related business process reform milestones and goals. | The Department of Defense (DOD) faces complex financial and management problems that are deeply rooted in DOD's business operations and management culture. During the past 12 years, DOD has begun several broad-based departmentwide reform efforts to overhaul its financial operations and other key business areas. These efforts have been unsuccessful. GAO identified several key elements that are essential to the success of any DOD financial management reform effort. These include (1) addressing the department's financial management challenges as part of a comprehensive, integrated, DOD-wide business reform; (2) providing for sustained leadership and resource control to implement needed reforms; (3) establishing clear lines of responsibility, authority, and accountability for such reform; (4) incorporating results-oriented performance measures and monitoring tied to the reforms; (5) providing appropriate incentives or consequences for action or inaction; (6) establishing and implementing an enterprise architecture to guide and direct financial management and modernization investments, and (7) ensuring effective oversight and monitoring. |
Because of their experience with the technical aspects of cleanups, EPA regional work assignment managers prepare detailed cost estimates for all new work on Superfund projects before the agency contracts for that work. These estimates should specify the scope of the work assignment (such as conducting a cleanup feasibility study), the required hours, and the expected cost of each major activity for that assignment. Regional contract officers then use these estimates to negotiate with contractors the best price that EPA can award for each work assignment, documenting any significant differences between the estimate and the awarded price. The agency also uses this process to negotiate any changes in the scope of a work assignment as the cleanup proceeds that may lead to discrepancies between the original awarded price and the final price of the contracted work. The work assignment manager uses the estimate and any revisions to develop the work plan and to manage the contractor’s work. When we last examined EPA’s cost estimates in April 1999, we reported that 11 (or about 31 percent) of the 35 estimates we reviewed fell substantially below the awarded price—an indication that the estimates may be of poor quality, according to the agency’s Financial Manager’s Financial Integrity Act Report. In addition, in 29 percent of the cases, the awarded price matched the contractor’s estimate—an indication that EPA may not be using the estimates to negotiate the best price for the government. In response to our report, the agency said it was awaiting the results of the Corps’ review and would then take further action to correct any cost-estimating problems. EPA is in the process of implementing two initiatives designed to address the weaknesses with its cost-estimating processes identified by the Corps and us. The initiatives are a new training course and new guidance, including a Web-based tool that provides work assignment managers with data on the actual, current costs of contracted work to help them develop more complete and accurate estimates. EPA has yet to determine how it will make the training available to all managers when needed or how it will ensure that the actual cost data in the tool remain up-to-date. In our April 1999 report, we noted that work assignment managers, who prepare the estimates, cited two barriers that kept them from developing better estimates. First, 15 of the 34 work assignment managers we interviewed (about 44 percent) cited their inexperience with estimate preparation. Although work assignment managers are chiefly responsible for managing the technical aspects of cleanup work, they had relatively little cost-estimating experience, because they tended to prepare only one or two estimates each year. They told us that more and better training were needed to compensate for this lack of experience. Second, all of the work assignment managers cited the need to access data on the actual costs of previously contracted work. They believed that better data on actual costs could serve as a baseline when determining what new contracted work should cost. Similarly, the Corps recommended in its December 1999 report that EPA (1) improve the training it provides work assignment managers, and (2) develop tools that contain better information on actual costs of assignments to help the work assignment managers generate better estimates. It also recommended that EPA (1) consolidate its various cost- estimating guidance documents, (2) encourage work assignment managers to make more of a commitment to using their estimates to control contract costs, and (3) better document the assumptions work assignment managers used to develop each estimate and any significant differences in the estimate, the awarded price, and actual costs incurred. Actual costs may differ if changes in the scope of the work occur as the work proceeds. To address the Corps’ and our concerns, EPA designed a new training course for regional work assignment managers and is currently in the process of consolidating and revising its guidance on preparing estimates. The agency offered its new half-day course targeted at preparing estimates as an optional seminar during the last two annual conferences for work assignment managers. According to EPA officials, about 50 (or 10 percent) of the agency’s 500 work assignment managers attended one of these two sessions. The course offered instruction on which cost components to include in an estimate and addressed pricing the components and the resources available to help staff with this pricing activity. These resources included an introduction to a database on historical costs for contracted work compiled by the New York regional office and tables detailing the typical amount of labor hours needed to complete various contracted cleanup activities. In addition, the course showed managers how to adequately document the assumptions and data used to generate EPA’s estimate. The work assignment managers who attended the course found it very helpful and suggested improvements—such as additional instruction on documenting estimates—that could make it even more useful, according to the course evaluations they completed. Superfund managers in charge of contracting practices have not yet decided how to provide the training to all work assignment managers who need it when they need it. In response to our questions, the managers said that they planned to continue offering the course at the annual conference. However, it is unlikely that a sufficient number of work assignment managers will obtain the training they need in a timely and useful manner, since the agency has only reached about 10 percent of the work assignment managers in the past 2 years by relying on this method. To provide more opportunities for work assignment managers to attend, Superfund managers also said they are considering offering more than one session during each conference and training key staff in each region, who could, in turn, train the work assignment managers in that region. However, Superfund managers do not have such a plan in place at this point. According to the Atlanta region’s cost estimator, who was instrumental in developing the training course, it would be more effective for EPA to offer future training in the regions rather than through the annual conferences because more useful and detailed cost information can be presented in that forum. State project managers also attend the annual conferences, and unlike EPA project managers, some of them are required to disclose to contractors all of the information they used to develop their estimates. EPA does not disclose how it prices estimates because that could diminish the independence of the estimates and result in higher costs to the government. By presenting the training in the regions exclusively to EPA project managers, EPA can include the cost information without fearing that it will be disclosed to contractors. As its second initiative, the Superfund managers formed a workgroup— composed of headquarters and regional contracting staff—to revise the agency’s guidance to regional staff on how to prepare independent cost estimates. According to the managers, the new guidance will consolidate eight separate guidance documents currently in use and will emphasize how good estimates are critical to controlling contract costs. The guidance will also take users through the steps of developing a thorough estimate, providing them with checklists detailing the scope of a work assignment, giving users instructions for adequately documenting the steps, and identifying reliable sources of cost data. EPA has contracted with the Corps to use its expertise and databases to develop the data on the actual costs of similarly contracted work and other information, such as data on the labor hours needed for cleanup activities, to be included in the guidance. EPA also plans to ask cleanup estimators from other agencies, such as the U.S. Navy, to review these data before they are made available to work assignment managers. The Superfund managers intend to publish the guidance in paper form and make it available as an interactive tool via EPA’s Web site by the end of 2001. Data on the actual costs and the other information, such as the labor hours needed, will only be useful if they are updated regularly and kept current. To date, the Superfund managers have told us that their primary focus is to develop and implement the revised guidance to ensure that the initial version contains accurate data. They have not yet determined how they will routinely keep the data current, including the data originally obtained from the Corps, although they have discussed obtaining the Corps’ assistance on these issues. EPA plans to include a mechanism in the Web- based tool that allows work assignment managers to provide feedback on the tool, which they hope will help them keep the data current. However, because this feedback is voluntary, it does not provide a comprehensive method for updating the actual cost data. EPA plans to continue its current method of evaluating the quality and usefulness of estimates by relying primarily on its on-site reviews of estimates in each region once every 3 years. Superfund managers believe the reviews have been effective; furthermore, they do not believe they have the resources needed to visit the regions more frequently. EPA could supplement its regional reviews fairly easily by routinely analyzing information on estimate quality that is now becoming available—such as regional data comparing estimates to awarded prices—to look for systemic problems that need addressing. According to contracting officials from EPA and the Corps, additional monitoring would help EPA better ascertain the initiatives’ effectiveness in the regions. Currently, Superfund managers and officials from EPA’s Office of Acquisition Management—the office responsible for the agency’s overall contracting practices—review all Superfund contracting activities in the regions by visiting each of the 10 regions approximately once every 3 years to conduct reviews. Superfund managers assured us that, in response to the concerns we raised in our 1999 report regarding estimate quality, the reviews conducted in the past 2 years have included an examination of the quality of a region’s estimates. The three most recent reviews, beginning with the review of the Seattle region in June 1999, contain assessments of estimates and recommendations for improvement. In addition, Superfund managers told us that they use the periodic meetings and monthly teleconferences of the Senior Regional Management Acquisition Council as a forum to exchange information on issues or problems affecting estimates. The Council includes representatives from EPA’s Office of Acquisition Management and the Superfund program in headquarters, and regional work assignment managers. Furthermore, the managers told us that the discussion of estimates is a regular topic on the agenda for the Council’s semiannual conferences. Superfund managers plan to continue to rely on the regional reviews, supplemented by the Council’s and other discussions, to determine whether the quality and usefulness of contract estimates have improved as a result of the new guidance and training. They pointed out that recent regional reviews have found that estimate quality has generally improved in the regions. The managers believe that examining estimates in three to four regions each year, supplemented by the periodic Council discussions, provides them with a good indication of any problems that may be occurring with estimates nationwide. Furthermore, they cited a lack of resources as a barrier limiting more frequent regional reviews. According to the director of the division in the Office of Acquisition Management that oversees Superfund contracting activities, if the resources for more frequent monitoring were available, EPA could better determine how effective the initiatives are in the regions. Similarly, according to the Corps’ manager who oversaw the review of EPA’s estimating practices, EPA should review regional implementation of the new guidance within 6 months to 1 year of its taking effect to ensure that regional estimates are improving. Monitoring would be particularly important in the early implementation phases. However, these officials recognize that resource constraints are likely to rule out more frequent regional reviews. Superfund managers have at least two possible ways to augment the regional reviews and better monitor the agency’s initiatives. First, in their recent regional reviews, managers have recommended that the regions begin tracking data that compare the estimates, the awarded prices, and the final prices paid for the work as a way to gauge estimate quality in that region. The Atlanta region has already begun tracking its comparison data, according to the cost estimator in that region, who found the analysis very helpful for making improvements. Superfund managers have not yet required the remaining regions to collect the data or to forward it to headquarters, where the managers could analyze the information across regions. According to a Corps contracting official, the Corps performs such an analysis to determine whether its estimates are adequate nationwide. He believed that a similar analysis could help Superfund managers quickly identify and correct any systemic problems or incorporate any successful best practices. Second, Superfund managers plan to include a comment section in the new guidance, once it has been posted to the Superfund Web site, where regional work assignment managers can voluntarily provide feedback on the guidance as they begin to use it. The managers have not planned how they will analyze and use this information but said they would develop a plan before launching the new guidance by the end of 2001. EPA’s and GAO’s reviews have shown that the agency has made significant progress over the past decade in addressing the weakness of its cost- estimating processes. EPA regional work assignment managers are currently developing independent estimates, which contracting officers are using to negotiate the prices for cleanup work. The agency’s current initiatives should help the agency successfully address the Corps’ and our remaining concerns by providing the managers with the training and tools they need to develop better estimates. By incorporating some relatively simple additional steps to more fully implement and better scrutinize the effectiveness of the initiatives, the agency can better ensure that its efforts improve cost estimates agencywide. In order to more fully implement and better evaluate the improvements currently being made to EPA’s cost-estimating processes, we recommend that the Administrator, EPA, direct the Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, to complete plans on how to most effectively deliver improved, timely, and effective training to work work with the Corps to keep the data on actual costs of contracted work in its Web-based tool updated and current, and consolidate and routinely analyze regional data (which compare estimates, awarded prices, and final prices paid to contractors) and the feedback from work assignment managers on the Web-based tool to determine whether systemic estimating problems exist that EPA needs to address or whether best-estimating practices are available that it could adopt. We provided a draft of this report to EPA for review and comment. We subsequently met with designated Superfund managers, who agreed with our recommendations and promised to take actions to begin their implementation. Specifically, with respect to our first recommendation, they agreed that regional training seminars could be tailored and timed to meet the specific needs of the work assignment managers in the region. Therefore, they are likely to develop region-specific training as the primary training vehicle. In that regard, the Atlanta region’s cost estimator is conducting a training session in February 2001 for the work assignment managers in that region. Project officers from other regions are also attending the training in Atlanta, and the Superfund managers said they may consider whether it would be best for those project officers to customize the training, and in turn, train the work assignment managers in their own regions. Responding to our second recommendation, Superfund managers agreed that the Corps can most efficiently and effectively update cost data in the Web-based tool. However, EPA has yet to work out the details of the Corps’ future involvement in that effort. Finally, Superfund managers agreed that uniform regional data would help them judge the quality of estimates agencywide, identify any potential problems, and address them in a timely manner. Therefore, they agreed to formalize the requirements for reporting regional data to track cost estimates, awarded prices, and the actual prices of contracted cleanup work. We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees and interested Members of Congress. We are also sending copies to the Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director, Office of Management and Budget. In addition, we will make copies available to others on request. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report were Eileen Larence, Karla Springer, Elizabeth Erdmann, Jonathan S. McMurray, and Roger Bothun. | The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which manages the cleanup of the nation's most hazardous abandoned sites through the Superfund program, relies heavily on contractors to conduct its cleanup activities. Currently, EPA spends about 50 percent of its approximately $1.5 billion annual Superfund budget on contractors. With so much at stake, it is critical that the government get the best contract price for this cleanup work. EPA's and GAO's reviews have shown that the agency has made significant progress during the past decade in addressing the weakness of its cost-estimating processes. EPA regional work assignment managers are currently developing independent estimates, which contracting officers are using to negotiate the prices for cleanup work. The agency's current initiatives should help the agency successfully address the Army Corps of Engineers' and GAO's remaining concerns by providing the managers with the training and tools they need to develop better estimates. By incorporating some relatively simple additional steps to more fully implement and better scrutinize the effectiveness of the initiatives, the agency can better ensure that its efforts improve cost estimates agencywide. |
Donald Trump Teases That He Could Buck The NRA On One Aspect Of Guns
Enlarge this image toggle caption Darren McCollester/Getty Images Darren McCollester/Getty Images
In an abrupt shift in message, Donald Trump indicated Wednesday that he might be taking on a Republican tenet: the party's long-standing opposition to gun control.
Trump said he would talk to the NRA about not allowing "people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns." In typical fashion for the presumptive Republican nominee, the announcement came via Twitter:
The NRA, for its part, says there's no conflict:
Happy to meet @realdonaldtrump. Our position is no guns for terrorists—period. Due process & right to self-defense for law-abiding Americans — NRA (@NRA) June 15, 2016
In a statement, the NRA said it would be "happy to meet with Donald Trump." But that:
"The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue."
The controversy stems from the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act," which was introduced after the Paris attacks. Republican Peter King from New York, for example, blamed the NRA for the lack of action on the bill.
"Anything which they feel restricts the use or the ability to retain a gun they're opposed to," King said, per the New York Daily News. "It's sort of a knee-jerk reaction. The National Rifle Association is strongly opposed to it, and the fact is we have only a handful of Republican co-sponsors."
The bill was first introduced in 2007 and subsequently in years that followed.
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who was against a version of the bill in the Senate, said it was because "there are over 700,000 Americans on some watch list or another that would all be captured under this amendment the Democrats offered. And that's the problem."
PolitiFact rated Rubio's statement "mostly false." That's because while there are 700,000 people on the list, only about 10,000 are Americans:
"The number of Americans on the list likely doesn't exceed 10,000, said Martin Reardon, former chief of the FBI Terrorist Screening Center's operations branch. "Some innocent people have been wrongly included in the terrorist watch list or the no-fly list, which can affect their lives in ways such as having to go through extra airport security or being stopped from boarding a plane. But for an American to get on that list by accident is 'harder than people think,' added Reardon, who is now a vice president at the Soufan Group, a consulting firm."
Trump's seeming openness to potentially buck the NRA, even slightly, is yet another example of his willingness to veer off GOP orthodoxy. It also plays into the notion that he's open to making deals with Democrats. It's why some conservatives have questioned Trump's conservatism — given his earlier views on a host of issues. In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, he wrote that he supported banning assault weapons, like the one used in Orlando, and extending waiting periods when purchasing firearms.
But it also shows that on yet another issue important to conservatives, as with abortion, Trump is not steeped in the issue and does not really understand the arguments. The NRA, for example, as noted above, would say it isn't against denying guns to people on terrorist watch lists. It is even in favor of a bill that would do just that, the group argues. But because Trump doesn't have a deep understanding of the issue, he gets himself into these positions that make him look like he's splitting with important constituencies.
Despite appearing to open a crack in the door with the NRA — and his previous position in 2000 — Trump has come out firmly and publicly against an assault-weapons ban or further restrictions. Just look at his statements both immediately following the Orlando shooting and at an event Wednesday — after his tweet went out.
"Her [Hillary Clinton's] plan is to disarm law-abiding Americans," Trump contended, "abolishing the Second Amendment and leaving only the bad guys and terrorists with guns — no good. Not gonna happen, folks, not gonna happen."
For the record, Clinton does not support abolishing the Second Amendment. She is in favor of tighter gun control measures, however.
In Atlanta Wednesday, Trump sounded equally hard-line on gun rights, alleging that if everyone in the Pulse nightclub had had a gun, there would have been a different result — something he said after the Paris attack as well (and is a standard NRA line).
"If some of those great people that were in that club that night had guns strapped to their waist or strapped to their ankle," Trump said, "and if the bullets were going in the other direction, aimed at this guy, who was just open target practice, you would have had a situation folks, which would have been always horrible, but nothing like the carnage that we all as a people suffered this weekend."
He added, "By the way, I'm going to save your Second Amendment."
Forty-nine people were killed in Orlando, and even more injured, when a Muslim man — born in the U.S., who had declared allegiance to ISIS and apparently was mentally unstable and had frequented the gay club in the past — opened fire with an assault-style rifle. The Orlando shooting was the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history and has prompted Democrats to re-up calls for gun control measures.
Clinton had also given a speech earlier in the day Monday in which she stressed the need to expand gun control laws. "If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn't be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked," Clinton said.
At a campaign event in Virginia Wednesday, Clinton reiterated that. "If you have suspected terrorist links," she said, "you should not be able to buy a gun."
Trump's seeming shift might also reveal another Achilles' heel of sorts for the candidate: his sensitivity to the polls. Despite his boasting of his strength in the polls Wednesday, the presumptive Republican nominee has seen a dip in recent weeks. According to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Trump has dropped nearly 6 points in the last three weeks in head-to-head matchups with Clinton.
Americans are split on the issue of guns and have gotten more polarized during the Obama years. According to an August 2015 survey from the Pew Research Center, 50 percent of Americans believe it is more important to control gun ownership while 47 percent believe is it more important to protect the rights of gun owners. That is a big swing from 2000 when two-thirds believed controlling gun ownership was most important.
In light of the Orlando shooting, some Republican lawmakers appeared open to a possible reconsideration of the bill that stalled last fall on trying to keep guns out of the hands of people on the terrorist watch list.
"We're open. Nobody wants terrorists to have firearms," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday. "We're open to serious suggestions from the experts as to what we might be able to do to be helpful."
Senate Democrats are pushing again for legislation that would ban suspected terrorists from buying guns. The GOP, though, is pushing an alternative measure, noted above by the NRA, proposed by Cornyn. That bill would allow the delaying of gun sales to people on that terrorist watch list for up to 72 hours, to give law enforcement time to approve blocking the sale.
Similar previous Democratic and Republican measures were unable to overcome filibusters last year. Cornyn's bill got 55 votes in December, but Democrats blocked it, because they see it as window dressing.
NPR Capitol Hill correspondent Ailsa Chang notes that after 72 hours, Cornyn's bill requires the government to show probable cause that the person on the list is a known or suspected terrorist to permanently stop him or her from buying a gun. ||||| Lost in much of the discussion is the fact that the proposal from Democrats likely would not have prevented Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, from buying his guns in the days before the massacre. The FBI had investigated Mateen for ties to terrorism twice in 2013 and 2014, and during those inquiries he was placed on the main watch list, known as the Terrorist Screening Database. But his name came off the list when those investigations ended. Democrats say that a proposal from Senator Dianne Feinstein of California would allow the attorney general to block gun sales to suspected terrorists even after a formal investigation is closed, but it would not require the government to do so.
Beyond Trump, there have been signs in the last 24 hours that Republicans might be shifting on the issue in the wake of the Orlando massacre and as the November elections approach. Representative Robert Dold of Illinois, a Republican representing a swing district, called for a vote on measures to restrict gun sales to suspected terrorists. Senator Rob Portman, who is in a tough reelection fight in Ohio, also told reporters that anyone on the terror watch list should be barred from purchasing guns. (A spokesman later clarified that Portman’s position was the same as it was in December, when he voted in favor of a weaker Republican bill to give the Justice Department more power to delay or block gun sales to suspected terrorists.) And on Wednesday morning, another vulnerable Republican senator, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, responded to Trump’s tweet about an NRA meeting with her own call for a resolution to the debate: “We need to work together to solve this and ensure terrorists can’t buy guns,” she wrote.
The NRA responded to Trump later on Wednesday by saying it was glad to meet but that its position had not changed.
Happy to meet @realdonaldtrump. Our position is no guns for terrorists—period. Due process & right to self-defense for law-abiding Americans — NRA (@NRA) June 15, 2016
Perhaps the most significant comments, however, came from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said he was “open” to legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. Republicans, he told reporters, were “open to serious suggestions from the experts as to what we might be able to do to be helpful.” McConnell’s top priority this year is not electing Trump president; it’s maintaining a Republican majority in the Senate, and the more pressure he gets from vulnerable members of his caucus, the more likely he is to move on legislation dealing with the watch list.
Any debate on restricting gun sales to people on the watch list is likely to center on the due-process provisions in the legislation. Democrats say their bill allows individuals to appeal their placement on the list, but it did not go far enough for the NRA or Republicans. Most Republicans instead voted for an alternative proposed by Senator John Cornyn of Texas, which would have allowed the attorney general to delay a sale of firearms to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours and required the FBI to obtain a court order blocking the sale if the judge found probable cause that the person “has committed or will commit an act of terrorism.” Democrats deemed that standard far too high, and most voted against the bill. ||||| Donald Trump says he's meeting with the National Rifle Association, America's foremost pro-gun lobbying group, on the issue of banning people from terror watch lists from buying and owning firearms.
The presumptive GOP nominee, who the NRA endorsed last month at their Leadership Forum in Kentucky, tweeted about the meeting early Wednesday.
I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2016
The announcement comes days after the nation's deadliest mass shooting, when gunman Omar Mateen opened fire at an Orlando gay club early Sunday, killing 49 people and injuring dozens of others.
Mateen, who had previously been investigated by federal officials for ties to known terrorists, nevertheless passed his background check to purchase a handgun and an assault rifle a week or so before the Orlando massacre. According to a U.S. intelligence source, he was not listed on a current terror watch list.
The NRA adamantly opposes to such restrictions on gun buying, believing that using a terror watch list as a basis for barring purchases infringes on Second Amendment rights.
The gun lobby reiterated its stance on Twitter just days after the Orlando shooting.
Restrictions like bans on gun purchases by people on "watch lists" are ineffective, unconstitutional, or both https://t.co/MQfbYnTDAE — NRA (@NRA) June 14, 2016
On Wednesday, the NRA tweeted out that they were "happy to meet" with Trump but did not appear to soften on the issue:
Happy to meet @realdonaldtrump. Our position is no guns for terrorists-period. Due process & right to self-defense for law-abiding Americans — NRA (@NRA) June 15, 2016
Trump has said during the presidential campaign that he backs a gun-buying ban for anyone on a federal watch list.
Back in November, Trump told ABC News in an interview about allowing firearm purchases: "If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it's an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely."
And in another interview with CBS' "Face the Nation" following the San Bernardino shooting, Trump addressed the question of whether or not he would support a ban on anyone buying guns if they were on a no-fly list: "I would certainly take a very look at it," he said in December. "I would. I'm very strongly into the whole thing with Second Amendment. But if you can't fly, and if you have got some really bad -- I would certainly look at that very hard."
Trump has broken from the NRA's agenda in the past -- in 2000, he wrote, "I support the ban on assault weapons and ... a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."
And after the 2012 Sandy Hook slaughter resulted in the deaths of 20 schoolchildren and teachers, Trump praised President Obama for a speech calling for stricter gun laws.
President Obama spoke for me and every American in his remarks in #Newtown Connecticut. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 17, 2012
Since the Orlando shooting, Hillary Clinton, Trump's presumptive general election opponent, has called for both a renewal of the expired assault weapons ban and a tightening of the terror watch loophole.
"If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun with no questions asked," Clinton said in a speech in Cleveland Tuesday. "You shouldn't be able to exploit loopholes and evade criminal background checks by buying online or at a gun show. Yes, if you are too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America."
The two viewpoints from the general election contenders are both backed by America's' public opinion. In the latest CBS News poll, conducted in the days following the Orlando shooting, a majority of Americans (57 percent) support stricter gun laws. Nearly nine in ten Americans support conducting background checks for every gun purchase. And about 57 percent of Americans favor banning assault weapons altogether. | Someone check Hell for ice cubes because it appears Donald Trump has broken with the GOP to side with Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. The Atlantic reports Trump is seeking to meet with the NRA about keeping people on terror watch lists from buying guns. “If Con Man Don can convince the NRA to move forward on this, God bless him,” one Democratic lawmaker from New York says. And while the situation shows Trump's willingness to break with the larger GOP, it also—as NPR argues—shows Trump lacks a deeper understanding of many issues. While Democrats want a ban on gun purchases for anyone on terror watch lists, the NRA and most Republicans only want 72-hour delay on such purchases. It's unclear Trump understands the distinction. The anti-NRA position isn't a new one for Trump, who was endorsed by the NRA last month, CBS News reports. He called for a ban on gun purchases by people on terror watch lists back in December. In 2012, he praised President Obama's call for stricter gun laws. In a 2000 book, he backed both a ban on assault weapons and tougher waiting periods. He's walked back many of those statements, but his earlier positions put him in line with the majority of Americans. A poll after the massacre in Orlando found more than half of Americans support stricter gun laws and a ban on assault weapons. Nearly 90% support universal background checks. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers are filibustering the Senate for gun control. |
Depot maintenance is a key part of the total DOD logistics effort and is a vast undertaking, supporting millions of equipment items, 53,000 combat vehicles, 514,000 wheeled vehicles, 372 ships, and 17,300 aircraft of over 100 different models. Depot maintenance requires extensive shop facilities, specialized equipment, and highly skilled technical and engineering personnel to perform major overhaul of weapon systems and equipment, to completely rebuild parts and end items, to modify systems and equipment by applying new or improved components, or to manufacture parts unavailable from the private sector. DOD’s depot maintenance facilities and equipment are valued at over $50 billion. DOD annually spends about $15 billion—or about 6 percent of its $243 billion fiscal year 1996 budget—on depot maintenance activities. About $2 billion of this amount includes contractor logistics support, interim contractor support, and funds for labor associated with the installation of some major modifications and parts of software maintenance, which are contracted to the private sector using procurement, rather than operation and maintenance funds. The DOD depot system, which is actually comprised of four systems,employs about 89,000 DOD civilian personnel, ranging from laborers to highly trained technicians to engineers and top-level managers. Our recent report on closing maintenance depots provides a history of each of the services’ depot systems. While the number of depot personnel has been reduced by over 40 percent relative to when the DOD depot system was at its peak in 1987, depot facilities and equipment have not been similarly downsized. At the time of the 1995 BRAC process, the DOD depot system had 40 percent excess capacity, based on an analysis of maximum potential capacity for a 5-day week, one 8-hour-per-day shift operation. The Air Force, which had not closed a U.S. depot since the 1960s, had 45 percent excess capacity. Currently, there are 29 major DOD depot maintenance facilities—Army depots, Air Force logistics centers, naval aviation depots, naval shipyards, naval warfare centers, and Marine Corps logistics bases—that perform depot maintenance work—of which 10 are in the process of being closed as DOD maintenance depots as a result of BRAC decisions. Additionally, DOD uses over 1,300 U.S. and foreign commercial firms to support its depot maintenance requirements. Statutes and regulations influence the mix of maintenance work performed by the public and private sectors. For example, as early as 1974, legislation prescribed a specific dollar value mix for public and private sector performance of alteration, overhaul, and repair work for naval vessels. Since then, workload allocation decisions have been influenced by percentage goals found in DOD policy guidance and legislation. DOD Directive 4151.1, “Use of Contractor and DOD Resources for Maintenance of Materiel,” directed the services to plan for not more than 70 percent of their depot maintenance to be conducted in DOD depots to maintain a private sector industrial base. The most basic of the legislative mandates governing the performance of depot-level workloads is 10 U.S.C. 2464, which provides for a “core” logistics capability to be identified by the Secretary of Defense and maintained by DOD unless the Secretary waives DOD performance as not required for national defense. Traditionally, core was defined as the capability, including personnel, equipment, and facilities, to ensure timely response to a mobilization, national contingency, or other emergency requirement. The composition and size of this core capability are at the heart of the depot maintenance public-private mix debate. Other statutes affect the extent to which depot-level workloads can be converted to private sector performance. Two of the most significant are 10 U.S.C. 2466 and 10 U.S.C. 2469. The first prohibits the use of more than 40 percent of the funds made available in a fiscal year for depot-level maintenance or repair for private sector performance: the so-called “60/40” rule. The second provides that DOD-performed depot maintenance and repair workloads valued at not less than $3 million cannot be changed to performance by another DOD activity without the use of “merit-based selection procedures for competitions” among all DOD depots and that such workloads cannot be changed to contractor performance without the use of “competitive procedures for competitions among private and public sector entities.” In recent years DOD has sought relief from both these two statutes. DOD and the Congress are defining the role of DOD depots in the post cold war era, much in the same way the roles of U.S. war-fighting forces are being reshaped. The new model for managing depot maintenance has not yet emerged. However, given DOD’s depot maintenance policy report, the model apparently will be a mix between public and private sector capabilities, but with a clear shift toward greater reliance on the private sector. DOD’s March 1996 Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workload Report projected a significant increase in the depot work that will be privatized. Further, since the services periodically reevaluate their core workload requirements, it is unknown how much more of their current work will be determined to be non-core and privatized. Unless effectively managed, including downsizing of remaining depot infrastructure, a major shift in depot workloads to the private sector would exacerbate existing excess capacity in the DOD depot maintenance system. Historically, depot maintenance on wartime critical DOD systems has been largely performed in DOD depots. Based on both cost and risk factors, the general DOD policy was to rely on DOD depots to provide a cost-effective and reliable source of support for wartime readiness and sustainability. With some exceptions, peacetime maintenance of weapon systems with wartime taskings was performed in DOD depots. This peacetime workload constituted depot maintenance core. Core was determined by quantifying the depot work that would be generated under war scenarios and then computing the amount of peacetime work needed to employ the number of people necessary to support the anticipated wartime surge. Peacetime workload was composed of a mix of high and low-surge items allowing employees to transfer from low surge workload to high surge workload during war. While there were always a number of potential war scenarios, the depots were sized to support a sustained global war. During the cold war, there was not much pressure to move work from DOD depots to the private sector. Military leaders expressed a clear preference for retaining much of their work in DOD depots, which were highly flexible and responsive to changing military requirements and priorities. The quality of the DOD depots was high and users were generally well-satisfied with the depots’ work. Further, the threat of a global war and the resulting stress on the logistics system were constant reminders of the need to maintain the flexibility and responsiveness the depot system provided. Historically, DOD has reported that about 70 percent of its depot maintenance work was performed in DOD depots. In our 1994 testimony before the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, we stated that the private sector more likely receives about 50 percent of the DOD depot maintenance budget. We noted that a portion of the funds expended on the maintenance workload assigned to the public sector ultimately was used for private sector contracts for parts and materiel, maintenance and engineering services, and other goods and services. Additionally, some types of depot maintenance activities, such as interim contractor support and contractor logistics support, were not included in previously reported statistics. Our review of data in DOD’s March 1996 workload report indicates that by fiscal year 1997, the mix will be about 64 percent in the public sector and 36 percent in the private sector. Further analysis indicates that the data does not include funds reported by the services for interim contractor support, contractor logistics support, or goods and services that the DOD depots ultimately buy from the private sector. Including these funds would change the mix to about 53 percent in the public sector and 47 in the private sector. While the Department’s projection for the public-private mix in 2001 is 50 percent in each sector, our analysis indicates that it is actually about 37 percent in the public sector and 63 in the private sector. Further, since the services are conducting risk analyses to further define their minimum core capability, the DOD depots’ share of funding could be reduced even further. With the end of the cold war and the subsequent declines in defense spending, there are increased pressures to privatize more depot maintenance work. Those declines affected force structure and the public and private activities supporting force structure. As acquisition programs began to decline, a growing concern arose over the impact on the defense industrial base. Particular concern focused on how that industrial base could be maintained without the large development and production programs of the past, and attention began to shift to DOD depot workloads as a potential source of work to keep the industrial base viable. Advocates of more private sector involvement argue that a shift toward the private sector would not only help keep the private sector production base healthy during a period of reduced weapon procurement but also could result in lower costs, since the private sector could provide depot maintenance at lower cost than the public sector. Proponents of the DOD depot system believe the DOD depots have provided a quality, responsive, and economical source of repair. They note that DOD maintenance policy for many years has supported the outsourcing of depot maintenance work when it was determined to be cost-effective to do so. Further, they contend there are substantial differences between developing and producing new systems and maintaining fielded ones and that the dollars spent on maintenance, while not small, cannot fill the void created by declining production dollars. Section 311 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 is an indication of congressional intent regarding the continued need for DOD depots: It is the sense of Congress that there is a compelling need for the Department of Defense to articulate known and anticipated core maintenance and repair requirements, to organize the resources of the Department of Defense to meet those requirements economically and efficiently, and to determine what work should be performed by the private sector and how such work should be managed. Section 311 also directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive policy on the performance of depot-level maintenance and repair for the Department of Defense that maintains the core capability described in 10 U.S.C. 2464 and report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on National Security. The section further directed that in developing the policy, the Secretary should include certain elements such as interservicing, environmental liability, and exchange of technical data. The Congress supports preserving a DOD depot maintenance system to support core requirements. With no additional BRACs scheduled, the Department was charged with developing a depot maintenance policy that provides adequate workloads to ensure cost efficiency and technical proficiency in time of peace. We are analyzing DOD’s depot maintenance policy and workload analysis reports, as required by Section 311, and will be reporting our findings by May 18, 1996. However, as requested, I am providing our observations to date on the policy report. First, it provides an overall framework for managing DOD depot maintenance activities. Second, it sets forth a clear preference for moving workload to the private sector, which will likely result in a much smaller core capability than exists today. Third, it is not consistent with congressional guidance in one key area—the use of public-private competitions. Fourth, the policy provides substantial latitude in implementation. As a result, the precise affect of this policy on such factors as public-private mix, cost, and excess capacity remain uncertain. In response to the congressional requirement for a comprehensive statement of depot maintenance policy, DOD provided an overall framework for managing DOD depot maintenance activities. The policy report reiterates some past policies and identifies some new initiatives for depot-level maintenance. It references other directives, publications, memorandums, and decisions and notes that DOD plans to develop an updated single publication with applicable maintenance policy guidance. Our assessment is based on observations to date about the policy report and other related documents. The policy report clearly states that the Department has a preference for privatizing maintenance support for new systems and for outsourcing non-core workload. It represents a fundamental shift in the historical policy of relying on DOD depots to provide for the readiness and sustainment of wartime tasked weapon systems. Section 311 of the authorization act states that the DOD policy should provide that core depot-level maintenance and repair capabilities are performed in facilities owned and operated by the United States. It also states that core capabilities include sufficient skilled personnel, equipment, and facilities that are of the proper size to ensure a ready and controlled source of technical competence, and repair and maintenance capability necessary to meet the requirements of the National Military Strategy and other requirements, and to provide for rapid augmentation in time of emergency. Core, as set forth in the policy and workload reports, no longer means that wartime work will be performed primarily by DOD depots. DOD’s core concept is for its depots to perform maintenance requirements that the service secretaries identify as too risky for the private sector to perform. In determining core workloads, the DOD policy calls for maintaining only “minimum capability”—which does not necessarily mean an actual workload for a depot. What once was calculated as core is now called pre-risk core. For those mission essential workloads that historically would dictate retention of a core capability, the services will conduct a risk assessment to determine if the work should be made available for competition within the private sector. The policy guidance provides some limited criteria for performing a risk assessment, but DOD has not yet developed guidelines for making those assessments in a consistent manner. It is unclear the extent measured criteria or subjective judgement will be used for such assessments. In a similar vein, DOD’s policy on depot maintenance seeks to severely limit the use of DOD depots for new weapon systems. Section 311 provides for the performance of maintenance and repair for any new weapon systems defined as core in facilities owned and operated by the United States. On the other hand, the Department reported to the Congress in August 1995 that it intended to privatize depot maintenance for new systems and reported in its January 1996 depot maintenance privatization initiative that it intended to freeze the transition of new workloads to DOD depots. The policy report and other recently issued DOD guidance, such as DOD Instruction 5000.2, also show that DOD’s maintenance concept for new and modified systems will minimize the use of DOD depots. This preference, in combination with DOD’s minimum core concept and limited public-private competitions, if not effectively managed—including reducing infrastructure and developing competitive markets—would likely result, over the long term, in DOD depots becoming an economic liability rather than a cost-effective partner in the total DOD industrial base. The DOD policy report states that the Department will provide for cost efficiency, sufficient workload, and technical proficiency in its depots. However, accomplishing this objective will be difficult given that the depots already are underutilized and the policy providing for additional outsourcing would exacerbate that situation, unless there are additional depot closures. Further, the report does not provide a clear indication, aside from recognizing ongoing BRAC actions, on how the Department intends to downsize to minimum core. While we are in the process of reviewing the policy report for consistency with congressional direction and guidance, our observation to date is that the report is inconsistent in one key area—the use of public-private competitions for allocating non-core depot maintenance workloads. Section 311(d)(5) of the act provides that in cases of workload in excess of the workload to be performed by DOD depots, DOD’s policy should provide for competition “between public and private entities when there is sufficient potential for realizing cost savings based upon adequate private-sector competition and technical capabilities.” DOD’s report provides a policy that is inconsistent with this instruction. According to DOD, it will engage in public-private competition for workloads in excess of core only when it determines “there is not adequate competition from private sector firms alone.” The report did not clarify what would constitute adequate competition. Under this policy, DOD depots would be used sparingly for public-private competitions and DOD depots cannot compete for all non-core workloads, where adequate private sector competition exists, even though the DOD depots could offer the most cost-effective source of repair. We have reported that public-private depot maintenance competitions can be a beneficial tool for determining the most optimum cost-effective source of repair for non-core workloads. As noted in our recent reports on the Navy’s depot maintenance public-private competition programs for ships and aviation, we found that these competitions generally resulted in savings and benefits and provided incentives for DOD depot officials to reengineer maintenance processes and procedures, to develop more cost-effective in-house capability and to ensure that potential outsourcing to the private sector is more cost effective than performing the work in DOD depots. We recognize that DOD’s public-private depot maintenance competition program raised concerns about the reliability of DOD’s depot maintenance data and the adequacy of its depot maintenance management information systems. These deficiencies are not insurmountable. As we noted in prior reports, many of the problems were internal control deficiencies that can be addressed with adequate top-level management attention. We also noted that some corrective actions have already been undertaken and additional improvements can be made. Further, we recommended that the Defense Contract Audit Agency be used to certify internal controls and accounting policies and procedures of DOD depots to assure they are adequate for identifying, allocating, and tracking costs of depot maintenance programs and to ensure proper costs are identified and considered as part of the bids by DOD depots. DOD has stated that it plans to use the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to review and certify the accounting systems of DOD depots. The policy report provides wide implementation latitude in a number of key areas. For example, it provides for a DOD depot capability, but the ultimate extent of such capability, and hence DOD depot requirements, could be substantially reduced depending on future core workload assessments of privatization, readiness, sustainability, and technology risks. Depending on implementation, the policy’s preference for privatization and the lack of a clear and consistent methodology for determining risks will likely lead to significant amounts of workload previously designated as core being reclassified as non-core and privatized. For example, with respect to the Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center, the Air Force is privatizing depot maintenance operations involving 627,000 direct labor hours of work—100 percent of which had been previously defined as core—stating that because the workload is being privatized-in-place, the risk is manageable. It is unclear how risky that privatization may turn out to be, particularly in light of the contractor’s interest in divesting itself of its defense business. However, a similar rationale is being used to support other in-place privatizations. With this predilection, it is likely that future core will represent something far different than it did in the past. For example, DOD’s March 1996 workload report noted that core would ensure “that the Air Force establishes and retains the capabilities needed to assure competence in overseeing depot maintenance production that has both public and private sector elements”—a significantly different mission than that historically envisioned for DOD’s core capability. Further, DOD’s March 1996 report to Congress, Improving the Edge Through Outsourcing, included intermediate maintenance of DOD weapons and equipment—another function traditionally considered core—as one which the Department will now consider privatizing. The policy also provides wide latitude in several areas where the decision for determining public or private sector source of repair is based on an assessment of what is “economical” or “efficient.” For example, the policy states that non-core workloads be made available for only private sector competition when it is determined that the private sector can provide the required capability with acceptable risks, reliability, and efficiency. This efficiency requirement does not require the inclusion of the public sector to ensure that privatization is the most cost-effective option. The underlying assumption behind DOD’s depot maintenance privatization initiative is the expectation that savings of 20 percent will be achieved and these savings will be made available to support the services’ modernization programs. Our analysis indicates that this assumption is unsupported. The data cited by Department officials to support this savings assumption is the Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces. In May 1995 the CORM concluded that 20 percent savings could be achieved by the privatization of various commercial activities and recommended that DOD transfer essentially all depot maintenance to the private sector. The Commission rejected the notion of core and recommended that DOD (1) outsource all new support requirements, particularly the depot-level logistics support of new and future weapon systems and (2) establish a time-phased plan to privatize essentially all existing depot-level maintenance. In its August 1995 response to the Congress on the CORM report, DOD noted that the Department agreed with the Commission’s recommendation to outsource a significant portion of its depot maintenance work, including depot maintenance activities for new systems. However, the DOD response noted that DOD must retain a limited core depot maintenance capability to meet essential wartime surge demands, promote competition, and sustain institutional expertise. We found that the Commission’s assumptions on savings from privatization generally were based on reports of projected savings from public-private competitions for various commercial activities as part of the implementation of OMB Circular A-76. These commercial activities reviews included various base operating support functions, such as family housing, real property and vehicle maintenance, civilian personnel administration, food service, security and law enforcement, and other support services. While these activities were varied in nature, they had similarities in that they generally involved low-skilled labor; required little capital investment; generally involved routine, repetitious tasks that could readily be identified in a statement-of-work; and had many private sector offerors who were interested and had the capability to perform the work. Our review of A-76 competitions and public-private competitions for depot-level maintenance found that the conditions under which A-76 competitions resulted in lower private sector prices were often not present or applicable to depot maintenance. Specifically, we found that: Reengineered government activities won about half of the A-76 competitions because they could provide the work cheaper. Our work shows that for public-private competitions involving depot maintenance activities, a program authorized by the Congress and implemented independently from A-76, DOD depots won 67 percent of the non-ship competitions. Public-private competitions for ships provided a unique situation wherein private sector offerors could bid marginal or incremental costs while DOD depots were required to bid full costs—a condition which, in concert with the more competitive nature of the ship repair market, led to the public shipyards not being competitive. When the private sector won A-76 competitions, savings were significantly higher than when the government function was performed by military personnel. The additional costs of military pay and benefits when coupled with productivity losses incurred for additional duties resulted in decreased competitiveness of the military personnel assigned to these duties. Depot maintenance, on the other hand, is performed almost exclusively with civilian personnel. The A-76 competitions did not involve activities comparable to depot maintenance—which is far more complex, less repetitious, and involves many unique systems not found in the private sector. Problems associated with statements of work in A-76 competitions resulted in cost increases for privatized work because of contract modifications to more explicitly define required work—a condition we also identified in our review of DOD’s public-private program for depot maintenance. The impact of this cost growth for depot maintenance competitions can be illustrated by submarine repair competitions. While the average award amount for private shipyards was 16 percent less than that for competitions won by the public sector, greater cost growth in the private sector resulted in the average actual costs being about the same. While the A-76 commercial activity competitions resulted in savings, the savings were not readily quantifiable, did not consider the cost of the competition or the administration of the contracts, and for those competitions that were audited, savings were often less than projected. We had similar findings in our review of public-private competitions for depot maintenance. Additionally, we found that for the non-ship depot maintenance competitions won by a DOD depot, the DOD depots’ bids averaged 40 percent less than the lowest private sector offeror. Where we observed cost growth in the limited number of depot competitions we analyzed, the growth was not sufficient to result in the DOD depots’ costs exceeding the bid of the lowest private sector offeror. The A-76 competitions were conducted in a highly competitive private sector market—frequently involving 4 or more offerors, with 10 percent of the competitions involving 11 or more offerors. Savings were much higher for those A-76 competitions won by the private sector where there were 5 or more private sector offerors. Our review of DOD’s 95 non-ship depot maintenance public-private competitions showed the private sector market to be significantly less competitive. Twenty-two of the competitions had no private offerors and 33 had only one. Only 28 of these competitions had three or more offerors, while the number of offerors averaged less than two per competition. Recognizing the influence of competition on achieving savings from privatization, we analyzed the competitiveness of DOD’s non-ship depot maintenance repair contracts. We asked 12 DOD buying commands to identify depot maintenance contracts that were open during 1995. They identified 8,452 contracts valued at $7.3 billion and, based on high dollar value, we selected 240 contracts valued at $4.3 billion to analyze the commands’ use of competitive procedures for the contracted workloads. The following table shows the results of our analysis. As shown, the 12 buying commands awarded (1) 182, or 76 percent, of the contracts through sole-source negotiation; (2) 49, or 20 percent, through full and open competition, and (3) 9, or 4 percent, by limited competition. The 49 fully competitive awards accounted for about 51 percent of the total dollar value while the 182 sole-source contracts accounted for about 45 percent of the dollar value. In reviewing the number of offerors for the 49 contracts valued at $2.2 billion that were awarded through full and open competition, we found that the commands averaged 3.6 offers for the 49 contracts—ranging from a low of only 2 offers to a high of 10. For 30 of the 49 contracts—about 86 percent of the $2.2 billion—the number of offers was 4 or less. Five contracts valued at $525.8 million had only two offers, while only 19 contracts valued at $309.4 million had five or more offers. We also found that a large portion of the dollar value of the contracts went to a relatively small number of contractors. Although the total number of contractors involved in the 240 contracts was 71, 13 of these contractors had most of the workload, about 76 percent of the $4.3 billion. Three of these 13 contractors had workload valued at $1.3 billion, about 30 percent of the $4.3 billion. Our analysis of depot maintenance contracts showed that the private sector market was more competitive for certain types of systems and equipment than for others. For example, awards for repair of ground vehicles, trucks, airframes, engines, and other items were more often competitive while sole-source contracts were prevalent for fire control systems, communications and radar equipment, electronic components, and other components. We found that the buying commands sometimes used both DOD depots and private sector sources for repair of a limited number of items. To make price comparisons, we looked at 414 items that buying activities identified as being maintained in both sectors. For 62 percent of the items, the contract price was higher than the price for the same item repaired in a DOD depot. We also analyzed the impact of other conditions relevant to creating a competitive environment. Regarding the ability to clearly define the service to be provided, the buying commands reported that depot maintenance activities present a difficult challenge. For much of the depot maintenance work, specific tasks that must be done, spare and repair parts that will be required, and the type and skill-level of the labor required cannot be identified until the equipment or component is inducted into the repair facility for inspection and repair. Our review of depot maintenance contracts showed the difficulty in constraining cost growth in this environment—particularly when cost-type contracts are used. It also showed the large costs normally associated with drafting statements of work, conducting the competitions, and administering the contracts. At one buying activity which obligates about $180 million per year for depot maintenance contracts, we found sole-source contracts were used 100 percent of the time—many of which were also cost reimbursable. Officials said they did not have the manpower, technical data, technical manpower, or contracting skills to use competitive contracting. Additionally, officials noted that the process for qualifying repair sources is difficult and time-consuming. There have been a number of recent initiatives to privatize depots recommended for closure or realignment by BRAC. The most prominent among these so-called “in-place” privatization initiatives involve the Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center, a depot recommended for closure by the 1993 BRAC Commission and located on Newark Air Force Base, Ohio, and the Sacramento and San Antonio Air Logistics Centers, which were recommended for closure by the 1995 BRAC Commission and are located on McClellan Air Force Base, California, and Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, respectively. We previously reported that, although it may be several years before the total cost of privatizing the Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center’s depot maintenance workload can be identified, our preliminary analysis indicated that this privatization will likely increase, rather than decrease, depot maintenance costs. In addition, our recent analysis of 254 contract items disclosed that (1) unit costs were higher after privatization for 201, or about 79 percent, of the items and (2) overall, there was a net cost increase of $6.01 million for the 254 items. Further, although the Air Force is projecting annual savings of $5 million for the last 4 years of the 5-year contract, we found that the Air Force did not include all relevant costs in its analysis. For example, our analysis showed that the Air Force’s estimated prices for eight contract items did not include such items as material costs totalling $15 million. We also reported on the potential impact of privatizing the San Antonio Air Logistics Center’s engine workload in place rather than transferring the work to the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center. Specifically, we reported that consolidating San Antonio’s engine workload with Oklahoma City’s engine workload would reduce Oklahoma City’s overhead rate for engine work by as much as $10 an hour and would result in an estimated annual savings of $76 million. As requested by Chairman Spence, we are conducting a more thorough review of the Department’s privatization-in-place initiatives, particularly those underway at San Antonio and Sacramento. Our preliminary observations on these initiatives follow. The BRAC Commission’s July 1995 report to the President noted that the decision to close the Sacramento and San Antonio Air Logistics Centers was a difficult one to make, but was necessary given the Air Force’s significant excess depot capacity and limited defense resources. The Commission report also concluded that these actions should save about $151.3 million over the 6-year implementation period and $3.5 billion over 20 years. Since this announcement, DOD has moved forward with its privatization efforts at these locations, including the announcement that contracts for five prototype workloads are to be awarded by the close of 1997. When the President forwarded the BRAC Commission recommendations to the Congress, he stated that his intent was to privatize the work in place or in the local communities in order to (1) avoid the immediate costs and disruption in readiness that would result from the relocation of the centers’ missions, (2) mitigate the impact on the local communities, and (3) preserve important defense work forces. The administration also decided to delay the centers’ closures until the year 2001 to further mitigate the adverse impact on the local communities. Our analysis indicates that delaying the centers’ closures until 2001 could increase net costs during the 6-year BRAC implementation period by hundreds of millions of dollars, primarily because it would limit the Air Force’s ability to achieve recurring savings to offset expected closure costs. Additionally, although the closures’ potential impact on local communities and readiness is a valid concern, actions can be taken to limit the impact. For example, the Sacramento community’s successful conversion of the Sacramento Army Depot to private use has demonstrated that this conversion, although difficult, can be accomplished. Further, according to Navy depot maintenance officials, on-going efforts to quickly close three aviation depots have had no significant impact on readiness. Our preliminary analysis also indicates that privatizing the two centers’ depot maintenance workloads in place is likely to be a more costly alternative than transferring the workloads to the three remaining centers. One reason for this is that there are substantial costs associated with privatization-in-place that do not apply to DOD maintenance depots. For example, our analysis indicates that unique requirements such as the cost of proprietary data rights, contractor profits, and contractor oversight could add 20 percent, or more, to the cost of performing the work. Further, the cost plus contract that will likely be used is not conducive to generating significant private sector economies, a situation already unfolding at the Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center. More significantly, our analysis indicates that privatization-in-place eliminates the opportunity to consolidate workloads at the remaining centers and to, thereby, achieve substantial “economy of scale” savings and other efficiencies. The Air Force’s five air logistics centers currently have approximately 57.3 million direct labor hours of depot maintenance capacity to accomplish about 29.3 million hours of workload (projected fiscal year 1999)—leaving a projected excess capacity of 49 percent in 1999. The BRAC decision to close the San Antonio and Sacramento Air Logistics Centers provides the Air Force the opportunity to redistribute workload to the remaining three air logistics centers, thereby reducing excess capacity within its depot system to about 8 percent. Our analysis indicates that redistributing 8.2 million hours of work from Sacramento and San Antonio to the remaining centers would allow the Air Force to achieve annual savings of as much as $182 million. According to financial management officials at the receiving air logistics centers, one-time workload transition costs of about $475 million would be required to absorb the additional workloads, indicating that net savings would occur within 2-1/2 years of the transition completion. On the other hand, if the remaining centers do not receive additional workload, they will continue to operate with significant excess capacity, becoming more and more inefficient and more and more expensive as their workloads continue to dwindle due to downsizing and privatization initiatives. Finally, various statutory restrictions may affect the extent to which depot-level workloads can be converted to private-sector performance—through privatization-in-place or otherwise—including 10 U.S.C. 2464, 10 U.S.C. 2466, and 10 U.S.C. 2469. While each of these statutes has some impact on the allocation of DOD’s depot-level workload, 10 U.S.C. 2469 constitutes the primary impediment to privatization in the absence of a public-private competition. Competition requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2469 have broad application to all changes to the depot-level workload valued at $3 million or more currently performed at DOD installations, including Kelly and McClellan. The statute does not provide any exemptions from its competition requirements and, unlike most of the other laws governing depot maintenance, does not contain a waiver provision. Further, there is nothing in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990—the authority for the BRAC recommendations—that, in our view, would permit the implementation of a recommendation involving privatization outside of the competition requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2469. The determination of whether any single conversion to private-sector performance conforms to the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2469 depends upon the facts applicable to the particular conversion. We do not have DOD’s position regarding how it plans to comply with the statutory restrictions. While DOD has stated that it will structure these conversions to comply with existing statutory restrictions, details of the Department’s privatization plans for Kelly and McClellan are still evolving. Further, “in-place” privatizations at Newark, Kelly, and McClellan are now the subject of litigation. In March 1996, the American Federation of Government Employees filed a lawsuit challenging these privatization initiatives, contending that they violate the public-private competition requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2469 and other depot maintenance statutes. While our analysis of DOD’s depot policy report continues, we believe there are several points the Congress needs to consider as it contemplates the repeal of 10 U.S.C. 2466 and 10 U.S.C. 2469—two statutes that influence the allocation of depot maintenance workload between the public and private sectors. First, the policy does not provide for participation of DOD depots in depot maintenance competitions for non-core workload as directed by the Congress. Second, since the policy provides wide latitude during implementation, likely outcomes of the policy change are difficult to predict. Third, cost savings are likely achievable from some depot privatization, but not in the percentages and scope predicted by the CORM. Fourth, privatization-in-place does not appear to be cost-effective given the excess capacity in DOD’s depot maintenance system. Given these considerations, the Congress needs to assure itself that any new policy has the intended required features and that a process is in place to monitor readiness, sustainability, and cost considerations. Further, the effective implementation of the new policy will require a further downsizing of the Department’s remaining depot maintenance infrastructure and the development of more competitive private sector markets. Thank you Mr. Chairman that completes my statement. I would be happy to answer questions at this time. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the privatization of defense depot maintenance activities. GAO noted that: (1) the Department of Defense's (DOD) evolving depot maintenance policy includes a public-private mix and shifts work to the private sector where feasible; (2) depot privatization could worsen excess maintenance capacity and inefficiencies if not carefully managed; (3) DOD's policy report provides an overall framework for managing depot maintenance activities and substantial implementation flexibility, but the policy is not consistent with congressional guidance providing for public-private competition for non-core workloads; (4) privatizing depot maintenance is not likely to achieve the 20-percent savings DOD projects, since the 20-percent savings were for commercial-type activities that more readily led to competition which produced the reported savings; (5) most non-ship depot maintenance private-public competitions have been won by the public sector and averaged fewer than two competitors; (6) DOD plans to privatize in place and delay downsizing and closure of two air logistics centers will probably cost more than closing them and relocating their workloads to underutilized defense or private facilities; and (7) statutes governing competition and base closures may have to be repealed or amended before DOD can proceed with its privatization efforts. |
Just One More Thing...
We have sent you a verification email. Please check your email and click on the link to activate your profile.
If you do not receive the verification message within a few minutes of signing up, please check your Spam or Junk folder.
Close ||||| Another wintry storm barreled across the southern United States on Wednesday, causing North Carolina drivers caught in monumental traffic jams to abandon their cars as highways became iced while hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses lost electricity.
While Atlanta's highways were clear, apparently because people learned their lesson two weeks ago during a storm that paralyzed area traffic, thousands of cars lined the slippery, snow-covered interstates around Raleigh, N.C., and short commutes turned into hours-long journeys.
As the storm glazed the South with snow and freezing rain, it also pushed northward along the Interstate 95 corridor, threatening to bring more than a foot of snow Thursday to the already sick-of-winter mid-Atlantic and Northeast.
At least nine traffic deaths across the region were blamed on the treacherous weather, and more than 3,600 flights were cancelled across the nation, FlightAware.com reported.
The situation in North Carolina was eerily similar to what happened in Atlanta: As snow started to fall around midday, everyone left work at the same time, despite warnings from officials to stay home because the storm would move in quickly.
Soo Keith of Raleigh left work about a little after noon, thinking she would have plenty of time to get home before the worst of the snow hit.
Instead, Keith, who is three months pregnant, drove a few miles in about two hours and decided to park and start walking, wearing dress shoes and a coat that wouldn't zip over her belly.
With a blanket draped over her shoulders, she made it home more than four hours later, comparing her journey to the blizzard scene from the movie "Dr. Zhivago."
"My face is all frozen, my glasses are all frozen, my hair is all frozen," the mother of two and Chicago native said as she walked the final mile to her house. "I know how to drive in the snow. But this storm came on suddenly and everyone was leaving work at the same time. I don't think anybody did anything wrong; the weather just hit quickly."
Caitlin Palmieri drove two blocks from her job at a bread store in downtown Raleigh before getting stuck. She left her car behind and walked back to work.
"It seemed like every other car was getting stuck, fishtailing, trying to move forward," she said.
Forecasters warned of a potentially "catastrophic" storm across the South with more than an inch of ice possible in places. Snow was forecast overnight, with up to 3 inches possible in Atlanta and much higher amounts in the Carolinas.
As the day wore on, power outages climbed and the dreary weather came in waves.
Ice combined with wind gusts up to 30 mph snapped tree limbs and power lines. More than 200,000 homes and businesses lost electricity in Georgia, South Carolina had about 245,000 outages, and 100,000 people in North were without power. Some people could be in the dark for days.
As he did for parts of Georgia, President Barack Obama declared a disaster in South Carolina, opening the way for federal aid. In Myrtle Beach, S.C., palm trees were covered with a thick crust of ice.
In Atlanta, which was caught unprepared by the last storm, streets and highways were largely deserted this time. Before the first drop of sleet even fell, area schools announced they would be closed on Tuesday and Wednesday. Many businesses in the corporate capital of the South shut down, too.
More than 1,000 National Guard troops have mobilized around the state, and Gov. Nathan Deal said 11 State Parks have opened as emergency shelters, MyFoxAtlanta.com reported.
The scene was markedly different from the one Jan. 28, when thousands of children were stranded all night in schools by less than 3 inches of snow and countless drivers abandoned their cars after getting stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic for hours and hours.
Matt Altmix walked his Great Dane, Stella, in Atlanta because "even in the snow, you still have to do your business."
"I think some folks would even say they were a little trigger-happy to go ahead and cancel schools yesterday, as well as do all the preparation they did," Altmix said. "But it's justified."
Deal, who was widely criticized over his handling of the last storm, sounded an upbeat note this time.
"Thanks to the people of Georgia. You have shown your character," he said.
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory urged people to charge their cellphones and find batteries for radios and flashlights because the storm could bring nearly a foot of snow in places such as Charlotte.
"Stay smart. Don't put your stupid hat on at this point in time. Protect yourself. Protect your family. Protect your neighbors," McCrory said.
Kathy Davies Muzzey of Wilmington, N.C., said she hid the car keys from her husband, John, on Tuesday night because he was thinking about driving to Chapel Hill for the Duke-UNC basketball game. He has missed only two games between the rivals since he left school in the late 1960s.
"He's a fanatic — an absolute fanatic," she said.
For the mid-Atlantic and the Northeast, the heavy weather was the latest in an unending drumbeat of storms that have depleted cities' salt supplies and caused school systems to run out of snow days.
The nation's capital could get up to 8 inches of snow. New York City could see 6 inches. Other sections of eastern New York were expecting 10 to 14 inches.
In normally busy downtown areas of Atlanta, almost every business was closed except for a pharmacy. Snow blanketed the ground around the tombstones at a historic cemetery in Decatur, including the graves of a Confederate private and a delegate to the Secession Convention.
Amy Cuzzort, who spent six hours in her car during the traffic standstill of January's storm, said she would spend this one at home, "doing chores, watching movies — creepy movies, 'The Shining'" — about a writer who goes mad while trapped in a hotel during a snowstorm.
In an warning issued early Wednesday, National Weather Service called the storm "catastrophic ... crippling ... paralyzing ... choose your adjective."
Meteorologist Eli Jacks noted that three-quarters of an inch of ice would be catastrophic anywhere.
However, the South is particularly vulnerable: Many trees are allowed to hang over power lines for the simple reason that people don't normally have to worry about ice and snow snapping off limbs.
Three people were killed when an ambulance careened off an icy West Texas road and caught fire. A chain-reaction crash shut down the four-lane Mississippi River bridge on Interstate 20 at Vicksburg, Miss., and a tanker leaked a corrosive liquid into the river. No one was injured.
On Tuesday, four people died in weather-related traffic accidents in North Texas, including a Dallas firefighter who was knocked from an I-20 ramp and fell 50 feet. In Mississippi, two traffic deaths were reported. ||||| Story highlights More than 729,000 without power in Southeast, utilities say
More than 4,100 flights are canceled for Thursday
All federal offices in Washington are shuttered, officials say
Casualty toll from storm climbs to at least 10
Get off the roads, and stay off.
That was the message in Georgia and the Carolinas as a snow and ice storm swept through Wednesday, bringing some of the Southeast's most populous cities to a standstill.
The warnings came as freezing rain brought heavy ice accumulations from Atlanta to Charlotte. Across a large swath of the South, hundreds of thousands of people were without power and thousands of flights were canceled.
Calling ice the biggest enemy, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal declared a state of emergency. School districts canceled classes and government offices were shuttered in an attempt to avoid a repeat of the traffic paralysis caused by a storm last month.
Up to three-quarters of an inch of ice was expected to accumulate in Atlanta and up to 10 inches of snow and sleet were expected in Raleigh and Charlotte, making travel treacherous.
Also in the storm's path were Virginia and Washington, with much of the Northeast to follow.
All federal offices in the nation's capital were ordered closed, and thousands of employees were being told to stay home, according to the Office of Personnel Management.
'Stay home, if you can'
52 photos: Southeast storm moves north 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Vehicles are piled up in an wreck Friday, February 14, in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. Traffic accidents involving multiple tractor-trailers and dozens of cars completely blocked one side of the Pennsylvania Turnpike outside Philadelphia. Hide Caption 1 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A pedestrian walks through a cloud of steam on a snowy street in New York on February 14. Commuters faced slick roads after a winter storm brought snow and ice to the East Coast. Hide Caption 2 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A traveler walks through Ronald Reagan National Airport in Arlington, Virginia, on February 14. Numerous flights were canceled and delayed this week as a result of the snowstorm that pounded a huge section of the country. Hide Caption 3 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – People dig out vehicles buried in snow in Albany, New York, on February 14. Hide Caption 4 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Chris Starace works to clear snow from his roof in Ossining, New York, on Thursday, February 13. Hide Caption 5 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Snow and ice cover an Atlanta neighborhood on February 13. Hide Caption 6 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – People walk through the snow on February 13 in Brooklyn, New York. Hide Caption 7 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – The lower Manhattan skyline is seen behind a pile of snow in Brooklyn on February 13. Hide Caption 8 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – After spending the night at Reagan National Airport, Ernie Harmon of Long Island, New York, watches a movie while waiting for his flight February 13. Hide Caption 9 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Snow covers cars in Brooklyn on February 13. Hide Caption 10 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Claire Lamborne removes snow from her car in Warrenton, Virginia, on February 13. Hide Caption 11 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A snowman is seen in front of a hardware store in Washington on February 13. Hide Caption 12 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Don Hammond of Newtown, Connecticut, shovels his driveway as snow continues to fall February 13. Hide Caption 13 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A long line of travelers winds around the atrium of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on February 13 as people attempt to catch flights previously canceled because of the massive winter storm. Hide Caption 14 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Rescue workers in Oxon Hill, Maryland, attempt to upright an overturned tractor-trailer on Interstate 495 on February 13. Hide Caption 15 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Snow collects at the base of escalators at the Dupont Circle Metro Station in Washington on February 13. Hide Caption 16 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A postal worker makes his delivery rounds through blizzard conditions in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, on February 13. Hide Caption 17 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Motorists push a vehicle on Highway 70 in Raleigh, North Carolina, on February 13, a day after the worst of the storm struck the town. Hide Caption 18 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A man helps push a car in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, on February 13. Hide Caption 19 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Snow blankets a street in Ossining, New York, on February 13. Hide Caption 20 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A traveler kills time as work crews continue to clear snow from the runways at Reagan National Airport in Arlington, Virginia, on February 13. Hide Caption 21 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A man in Bethlehem helps push a stranded motorist February 13. Hide Caption 22 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Lyall MacFee shovels snow in front of Sciortino's Pizzeria in Albany, New York, on February 13. Hide Caption 23 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A man digs out a small snowplow that got stuck while clearing snow from a sidewalk in Chevy Chase, Maryland, on February 13. Hide Caption 24 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A man braces his umbrella while walking through the wind and snow in New York City on February 13. Hide Caption 25 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Police work to tow a bus that slid off the road in Philadelphia on February 13. Hide Caption 26 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A man walks along the snow-covered Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington on February 13. Hide Caption 27 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A woman covers her face while walking in New York City on February 13. Hide Caption 28 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A worker clears a snowy sidewalk in Washington on February 13. Hide Caption 29 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Cars sit covered in snow on a street in Manassas, Virginia, on February 13. Hide Caption 30 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A man in Philadelphia shields his face from the elements February 13. Hide Caption 31 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A snowplow removes snow from the sidewalk in Washington's Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House, on February 13. Hide Caption 32 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – People walk through snow February 13 in the Chinatown neighborhood of New York City. Hide Caption 33 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – People help push a car stuck in the snow February 13 in Alexandria, Virginia. Hide Caption 34 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Kevin Miller looks out the passenger window of his friend's car as they sit stuck in traffic during a winter storm in Raleigh on Wednesday, February 12. Hide Caption 35 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Traffic moves slowly along Wade Avenue in Raleigh on February 12. Motorists were encouraged to stay off roads. Hide Caption 36 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Katharine Newton, a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, calls her parents February 12 while walking more than two miles from campus to her parents' home. Hide Caption 37 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Snowplows clear Interstate 75/85 in downtown Atlanta on February 12. Hide Caption 38 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A downed power line is draped across several vehicles in Atlanta on February 12. Hide Caption 39 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A police officer redirects traffic in Charlotte, North Carolina, on February 12. Hide Caption 40 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Ice coats trees hanging over a sign for the Broadway at the Beach tourist attraction in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on February 12. Hide Caption 41 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A sign warns drivers of winter weather as they travel on a bleak section of Highway 141 in Norcross, Georgia, on February 12. Hide Caption 42 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A truck in Bossier City, Louisiana, blocks access to Interstate 220, which was closed because of icy conditions on February 12. Hide Caption 43 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – City workers spread a mixture of sand and salt on an intersection in Avondale Estates, Georgia, on February 12. Hide Caption 44 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Ice and snow cover Interstate 26 in Columbia, South Carolina, on February 12. Hide Caption 45 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Shmetrice Moore, a nurse at an Emory University hospital in Johns Creek, Georgia, scrapes snow and ice off her windshield as she and others are released early from their shift on February 12. Hide Caption 46 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Hossam Shalaby waits for his rescheduled flight under a departure board at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on Tuesday, February 11. Hide Caption 47 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A vehicle travels in Greenville, South Carolina, on February 11. Hide Caption 48 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – People shop for what is left at a Publix grocery store in Decatur, Georgia, on February 11. Hide Caption 49 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Vehicles slowly make their way over a snow-covered Route 35 in Fort Payne, Alabama, on February 11. Hide Caption 50 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – Weather data is projected onto the face of Clint Perkins, director of state operations for the Georgia Emergency Management Agency, as he works in Atlanta on February 11. Hide Caption 51 of 52 52 photos: Southeast storm moves north Southeast storm moves north – A vehicle drives through falling snow on the U.S. 421 bypass in Sanford, North Carolina, on February 11. Hide Caption 52 of 52
JUST WATCHED Massive traffic jam in North Carolina Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Massive traffic jam in North Carolina 01:28
JUST WATCHED Atlantans stocks up for winter storm Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Atlantans stocks up for winter storm 01:16
JUST WATCHED Georgia governor: It's not end of the world Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Georgia governor: It's not end of the world 01:19
While most of the major thoroughfares in and out of the city of Atlanta were reportedly devoid of traffic, a different scene was playing out to the northeast where the storm appeared to take people by surprise despite days of warnings.
"Stay home, if you can," North Carolina's Department of Public Safety said in posts on Twitter. "Quickly deteriorating road conditions, numerous car accidents in Durham/Franklin/Johnston/Wake counties."
Collaborate and listen: A catchy school closure
Gridlock gripped portions of the state, including Raleigh, Durham and Charlotte, as cars and trucks got stuck on snow- and ice-covered roads.
"We saw so many people ... cars piled up and left on the side of the road, and wrecks," said Christina Martinson, who was stuck in the snow-bound traffic with her husband and son for hours in Durham.
"It's really, really bad, and it got so bad so quickly that people just weren't ready. Even though we were warned, it just happened more quickly than you would think possible."
For some, there just wasn't enough time.
Michael Crosswhite, 44, planned on leaving work in Raleigh, in Wake County, by midafternoon, well ahead of when forecasters initially predicted a snow and ice storm to hit the area.
But by noon, the snow and icy rain was coming down.
'Nothing you can do but hope you don't get stuck'
"We just passed an 18-wheeler that spun out into a ditch," he said by telephone more than two hours into his journey home to Durham, a trip that typically takes less than 30 minutes.
School's out: That's a rap
Moments later, a car ahead of him spun out in front of him.
"It's kind of slushy, and there are just icy spots that there is nothing you can do but hope you don't get stuck," Crosswhite said.
The images out of Raleigh and Charlotte recalled a similar scenario in Atlanta, a city shut down by 2.6 inches of snow two weeks ago when thousands of commuters were stuck on highways. Some drivers spent up to 20 hours in their cars.
"Right now we've got people traveling up and down the highways in special four-wheel vehicles to make any rescues that we need to make, and more than anything else we're just encouraging people to be smart, and don't put their stupid hat on during the next 48 hours," North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory said.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is urging people not to abandon their vehicles.
"There are some people abandoning their vehicles. We are urging them not to. It is very dangerous for them to be on foot with cars sliding near them and it blocks access for our sand trucks and plows and causes gridlock," said Communications Supervisor Steve Abbott.
Track the storm
JUST WATCHED Deal: Ice is our biggest enemy Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Deal: Ice is our biggest enemy 02:35
JUST WATCHED Teen builds huge snowman Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Teen builds huge snowman 01:26
7 photos: Will Atlanta be ready this time? 7 photos: Will Atlanta be ready this time? Will Atlanta be ready this time? – Charles Davidson spent nearly seven hours in his car before running five miles home after Atlanta's last snow. This time, he plans to stay in his house from the start. He and others stranded last time say they will be prepared. Hide Caption 1 of 7 7 photos: Will Atlanta be ready this time? Will Atlanta be ready this time? – Jagannathan Santhanam also plans to stay home after spending hours in his car the last time the roads got icy. He'll work remotely and keep his kids home, too. Hide Caption 2 of 7 7 photos: Will Atlanta be ready this time? Will Atlanta be ready this time? – Recruiter Keisha Owen , who spent two nights away from home during the last snow, will stay in her house and conduct interviews via Skype. This photo was taken during a night she spent stranded at a local hotel. Hide Caption 3 of 7 7 photos: Will Atlanta be ready this time? Will Atlanta be ready this time? – Faith Evangelista will be prepared if she has to spend another 11 hours in her car. She's packed an emergency kit and made sure she has plenty of gas. Hide Caption 4 of 7 7 photos: Will Atlanta be ready this time? Will Atlanta be ready this time? – Greg Ranallo walked more than 10 miles to a friend's house after his car was stranded during the last storm. It was a chilly experience. This time, he's packed extra warm clothes in his car, just in case. Hide Caption 5 of 7 7 photos: Will Atlanta be ready this time? Will Atlanta be ready this time? – During the last snow, Martin Cousin spent 23 hours in his car. He hopes that, this time, Atlanta has asked experienced northern cities and states for their advice in dealing with snow and ice. Hide Caption 6 of 7 7 photos: Will Atlanta be ready this time? Will Atlanta be ready this time? – And Joe Schenck 's lesson? Bring pants. Always bring pants. Last time, he trekked along the highway in his gym shorts until he was rescued by a bus full of middle schoolers. Hide Caption 7 of 7
It appeared people in Atlanta had learned their lesson.
Deal applauded Atlantans who kept the roads clear, saying during a midday news conference, "That's a good starting point."
Even so, there were thousands without power across the state after ice caused tree limbs to snap, knocking out power lines.
With temperatures below freezing, the National Guard opened up 35 armories across the state to be used as shelters and warming centers, CNN affiliate WSB-TV reported.
In Durham, the Streets at Southpoint Mall opened up as a shelter.
"We are here for people that need to get off the road," general manager Todd Anderson said. "We had a few people here earlier, now there is just a handful of people left but we will be available through evening."
"We are just trying to do the right and get people out of the cold," he added.
The Red Cross, meanwhile, reported hundreds sought shelter overnight at its facilities stretching from Louisiana to North Carolina.
In North Carolina, Kim Martin Rehberg's typical 25-minute commute was turning into an hours-long ordeal Wednesday as she tried to make it from her office in Durham to her home in Raleigh.
Three hours later, she still had miles to go. So, too, did the rest of her family who were stuck in traffic across the region.
"My daughter was stranded trying to get from her gymnastics class in Apex. My ex-husband is trying to get her and he got trapped," she said by telephone, referring to a Raleigh suburb.
"My husband is in Charlotte and says things are bad. All the gas stations are shutting down, and I had trouble trying to gas up."
'Our own trucks are stuck'
There are snowplows on the roads but "unfortunately some of our own trucks are stuck in the same traffic jams that a lot of other people are and they're having a hard time getting to the roads that need to be cleared," said Dan Howe, Raleigh's assistant city manager.
The low-pressure weather system bringing the snow and ice to the Southeast is expected to move up the East Coast, dropping snow on the Northeast. Six to 8 inches are predicted for Washington, with especially heavy snowfall Thursday morning, and 6 to 10 inches on New York from midnight Wednesday into Thursday, with a combination of snow, sleet and rain continuing until Friday morning.
New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo told state agencies to prepare "for an impending nor'easter" and asked residents to avoid unnecessary travel.
Power outages
More than 729,000 customers were without power in the Southeast, power companies told CNN. More than 210,000 were Georgia Power customers, the utility said.
South Carolina was the hardest hit, with about 220,000 customers without electricity, while Wilmington, North Carolina, accounted for more than 58,000 outages.
The utilities said Wednesday morning they expect those numbers to rise over the next 24 hours.
Georgia Power, the state's largest utility, warned that hundreds of thousands could be without electricity for days.
"This has the opportunity to be a huge event when you're talking about the amount of ice you're looking at," Aaron Strickland, Georgia Power's emergency operations chief, told reporters.
The utility staged fleets of trucks across the area. Teams from Florida, Texas and Ohio bolstered local line crews.
Transportation woes
The storm system also was taking its toll on travel.
Amtrak suspended some rail service in the Northeast, South and Mid-Atlantic regions for Wednesday.
Nationwide, more than 3,400 flights were canceled Wednesday and even more than 4,100 were scrubbed for Thursday, according to FlightAware.com.
Among the canceled flights were more than 1,600 in and out of Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson Internationanl Airport. Charlotte Douglas International and Raleigh-Durham International airports accounted for the majority of other flights canceled.
Deadly toll
At least 10 deaths have been blamed on the weather, including a 55-year-old man who was killed in a head-on collision in Virginia, authorities said. Two people were killed in Georgia, and two died in North Carolina, they said.
In Texas, three people died when an ambulance driver lost control on an icy patch of road outside of Carlsbad, the state Department of Public Safety said. A patient, a paramedic and another passenger were pronounced dead at the scene.
In Mississippi, authorities blamed the storm for two traffic deaths.
Stir-crazy? How to stay sane
It's not the snow, it's the ice
Travelers get another winter wallop | The warnings haven't minced words, and the potentially "catastrophic" weather set to hit the South has begun, with Atlanta already feeling the effects: Some 39,000 and counting have lost power there, with that number climbing by the thousands within spans as short as 10 minutes. In terms of thousands, 2,200 flights have been axed out of the city's airport, the world's busiest, with just 300 expected to depart today. Ice began to descend on major roads around 4am, and "all of the interstates, all of the secondary routes, all of the surface streets, are all iced over," said a local radio host, per the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "Where you are right now is where you’re going to be tomorrow morning, there's no doubt about it." Of particular concern are the many tree limbs over power lines; weighed-down icy limbs can snap, causing extensive outages, Fox News notes. Experts are warning that power could be out for a week in some areas, CNN reports. Indeed, ice is "our biggest enemy," says Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal. But much of the South is bracing for snow and ice: Three to five inches of snow could hit Atlanta; southwestern Virginia could see 14 inches, while Charlotte, NC, could get a foot. South Carolina hasn't logged a significant ice storm in a decade, but it could see as much as three-quarters of an inch of ice ... plus up to 8 inches of snow. |
Fyre Festival Organizers Promise Refunds, Charitable Donations & 2018 VIP Passes for All
Fyre Festival organizers say fans who attended the failed Exumas, Bahamas festival will be refunded in full and given "free VIP passes to next year's festival."
That news brings little solace to Fyre Fest attendees who traveled to the Caribbean island paradise hoping to party at the Instagram tastemaker VIP event only to find themselves stuck on a half-built festival site with lackluster food, unfinished overnight accommodations, a cancellation by headliner Blink-182 and hours spent trying to escape the island at the tiny Exuma International Airport.
The cancellation is a blow to Fyre Festival organizers and raises serious doubts about the organization and planning for the lavish two-weekend festival. Headlined by the G.O.O.D. Music crew, including Tyga, Desiigner and Pusha T, Fyre Festival was announced with a buzzy Instagram video that showed models Bella Hadid, Hailey Baldwin and Emily Ratajkowski sailing on a yacht and swimming off the waters of the tropical festival site, luring in fans spending thousands of dollars on the promise of private beaches, pirate cays and six-figure accommodations.
Now that most fans have made it back home, festival co-owners Billy McFarland and rapper Ja Rule have released the following statement to Billboard, telling their side of the disastrous story and promising fans refunds for the thousands of dollars many spent on tickets.
Billy McFarland and Ja Rule started a partnership over a mutual interest in technology, the ocean, and rap music. This unique combination of interests led them to the idea that, through their combined passions, they could create a new type of music festival and experience on a remote island.
They simply weren’t ready for what happened next, or how big this thing would get. They started by making a website and launching a viral campaign. Ja helped book talent, and they had hundreds of local Bahamians join in the effort. Suddenly, they found themselves transforming a small island and trying to build a festival. Thousands of people wanted to come. They were excited, but then the roadblocks started popping up.
As amazing as the islands are, the infrastructure for a festival of this magnitude needed to be built from the ground up. So, we decided to literally attempt to build a city. We set up water and waste management, brought an ambulance from New York, and chartered 737 planes to shuttle our guests via 12 flights a day from Miami. We thought we were ready, but then everyone arrived.
The team was overwhelmed. The airport was jam packed. The buses couldn’t handle the load. And the wind from rough weather took down half of the tents on the morning our guests were scheduled to arrive. This is an unacceptable guest experience and the Fyre team takes full responsibility for the issues that occurred.
Everyone was very concerned for our guests. They needed a place to sleep and everyone did their absolute best to rebuild. We took everyone to the beach and built as many tents and beds as fast as possible, but as more guests arrived, we were simply in over our heads. Ultimately, we didn’t think security could keep up, so we had to postpone the festival. The response to the postponement was immediate and intense. We had no other options this morning, so we began the process of getting guests quickly and safely back to Miami, which continues now. Our top priority as a company is to ensure the comfort and safe return home of all of our guests.
Then something amazing happened: venues, bands, and people started contacting us and said they’d do anything to make this festival a reality and how they wanted to help. The support from the musical community has been overwhelming and we couldn’t be more humbled or inspired by this experience. People were rooting for us after the worst day we’ve ever had as a company. After speaking with our potential partners, we have decided to add more seasoned event experts to the 2018 Fyre Festival, which will take place at a United States beach venue.
All festival goers this year will be refunded in full. We will be working on refunds over the next few days and will be in touch directly with guests with more details. Also, all guests from this year will have free VIP passes to next year’s festival.
We’re grateful for the Bahamian Government and The Bahamas Ministry of Tourism for their assistance during this challenging time—their efforts have been exemplary. We want to thank the people of the Bahamas for their support and for graciously allowing us the privilege of visiting their islands. We apologize for any inconvenience the past 24-hours has caused and we look forward to making a considerable donation to the Bahamas Red Cross Society as part of our initiatives. We need to make this right. And once we make this right, then we will put on the dream festival we sought to have since the inception of Fyre.
Thank you for all your continued patience and understanding. We apologize for what all of our guests and staff went through over the last 24 hours and will work tirelessly to make this right. Please check our official social media channels (@fyrefestival) for further important updates.
From Billy and the Fyre Festival Team" ||||| Fyre Festival, the music fest that was supposed to take place over two weekends on a private island in the Bahamas with headliners such as Blink-182, Migos and Major Lazer, collapsed Thursday night in a quagmire of broken sewer pipes and delayed international flights. Guests who paid thousands of dollars for chartered yachts and planes found themselves stranded with no bands, no luggage and, in some cases, no places to stay.
Music fans have been posting distress signals from the Bahamas via social media for the past 24 hours, with some suggesting they’re unable to leave the island. Festival promoters have so far issued only brief statements, but in an exclusive interview with Rolling Stone, Billy McFarland, the 25-year-old Fyre Fest co-organizer with rapper Ja Rule, gives his regrets, promises refunds and hopes to return for a make-up festival next year.
Today is definitely the toughest day of my life. I’d love the opportunity to go through and tell my story of how we got here and how I see it now and where it’s going.
I was a computer programmer, and after computers, the two things I love most are the ocean and, for some reason, rap music. So these three hobbies of mine somehow led me to meeting my partner, Ja Rule. Together, we became friends and business partners. For us, it was always a battle of pushing the limits. Once we got flying lessons together, we got on these really bad 40-year-old planes and flew from New York to the Bahamas – not really knowing the Bahamas very well – ran out of gas and landed in the Exumas and both of us immediately fell in love.
We started this website and launched this festival marketing campaign. Our festival became a real thing and took [on] a life of its own. Our next step was to book the talent and actually make the music festival. We went out excited, and that’s when a lot of reality and roadblocks hit.
The Exumas didn’t have a really great infrastructure – there wasn’t a great way to get guests in here – we were a little bit ambitious. There wasn’t water or sewage. It was almost like we tried building a city out of nothing and it took almost all of our personal resources to make this happen, and everything we had, to make this festival go on. We thought we were ready and built two different festival sites.
Early report is that many of the tents aren’t assembled. Here’s their tropical private island owned by Escobar! #FyreFestival pic.twitter.com/TNzBDbNAUJ — FyreFestivalFraud (@FyreFraud) April 27, 2017
The morning of the festival, a bad storm came in and took down half of our tents and busted water pipes. Guests started to arrive and the most basic function we take for granted in the U.S., we realized, “Wow, we can’t do this.” We were on a rush job to fix everything and guests were arriving and that caused check-in to be delayed. We were overwhelmed and just didn’t have the foresight to solve all these problems.
We made sure all guests got a place to stay and had a really long conversation overnight last night after everyone was housed about what to do next and realized we couldn’t risk the safety challenges. So that was the decision that we made — the first thing for us was making sure all these guests get refunded [and] all the vendors get taken care of. All the guests are going home, the refunds are being processed.
The weather unfortunately delayed flights and made them run into each other in terms of being close to when a lot of people were arriving. That was unfortunately something we had no control of, but it made things unacceptable for guests and we feel bad for it.
We thought we were making timeframes that were correct. We were a little naïve in thinking for the first time we could do this ourselves. Next year, we will definitely start earlier. The reality is, we weren’t experienced enough to keep up.
Everybody who wants to go home is being sent home tonight. Some of the guests who are staying in private homes, we’re asking them to stay longer, if they can. We’re going to take every measure to make this right for everybody now, and make this right for everybody next year, on a large scale.
There will be make-up dates, May 2018 in the U.S., free for everybody who signed up for this festival. We will donate $1.50 [per ticket] to the Bahamian Red Cross. It’ll keep the theme of being on water and beach. It’ll be not just music, but all forms of entertainment. The one change we will make is we will not try to do it ourselves. We will make sure there is infrastructure in place to support us.
As told to Steve Knopper
Organizers “postpone” two-weekend Bahamas fest following reports of feral dogs, threatening security, shoddy housing. ||||| Photo: Courtesy of Twitter/MattHalfhill
In early March, a friend of mine texted me to ask if I wanted to be a talent producer for the Fyre Festival. I’d never heard of it, but the gig involved going to the Bahamas and being paid extremely well. So I said yes and packed my bags. The festival was supposed to be a luxury music retreat where elite millennials could mingle with “influencers” and models. Tickets cost between $1K and $125K, gourmet food and accommodations were promised. I was planning to spend the next two months working on the festival, but a mere four days after I arrived I was back on a plane to New York because the whole thing, as everyone now knows, was a complete disaster. I was briefly involved in the planning of the event and got a front-row seat to chaos.
On March 14, I flew from Miami to the island of Great Exuma to get the planning started. I was excited, at least at first. Flying in, the water looked beautiful — but I was almost immediately warned not to go near it because of a rampant shark problem. That was an omen I regrettably missed.
Related Stories Life Lessons From the Great Fyre Festival Disaster
After we landed, we drove to the festival site to assess our goods. When we arrived, my initial reaction was “huh.” This was not a model-filled private cay that was owned by Pablo Escobar. This was a development lot covered in gravel with a few tractors scattered around. There was not enough space to build all the tents and green rooms they would need. There was not a long, beautiful beach populated by swimming pigs. There were, however, a lot of sand flies that left me looking like I had smallpox. Still, I had hope.
My job as a talent producer was to coordinate travel and on-site logistics with the artists who would be performing: Blink 182, Major Lazer, Disclosure, among others, had already signed on. I would be working with an 11-person team and a few of the festival executives. The production team was all new hires and, before we arrived, we were led to believe things had been in motion for a while. But nothing had been done. Festival vendors weren’t in place, no stage had been rented, transportation had not been arranged. Frankly, we were standing on an empty gravel pit and no one had any idea how we were going to build a festival village from scratch.
Here’s what the Fyre Festival was supposed to look like.
Pending disaster aside, I started working from an island rental house. I contacted the booked artists’ tour managers to start to coordinate. Almost all of them had the same question for me, which was along the lines of, “Hey … Where’s our money??” I tried to email the business manager to get an answer, who said something like “stand by” for three days in a row. By the end of the week it became clear they would not pay the people they owed.
On Wednesday, Ja Rule arrived for a “site visit.” I don’t know if he actually visited the “site” but he did spend a lot of time on a yacht, according to his Instagram. Meanwhile the event planners were holed up indoors putting together a game plan and a budget. With so little having been prepared ahead of time, the official verdict was that it would take $50 million to pull off. Planners also warned that it would be not be up to the standard they had advertised. The best idea, they said, would be to roll everyone’s tickets over to 2018 and start planning for the next year immediately. They had a meeting with the Fyre execs to deliver the news. A guy from the marketing team said, “Let’s just do it and be legends, man.”
At this point it was pretty clear that this was a mess and I shared my concerns with the man I reported to. But he assured me that the Fyre execs were legit, and said some socialite was underwriting the whole thing. The budget was okayed and we were told to carry on with our planning. That night Ja Rule gave a toast. “To living like movie stars, partying like rock stars, and fucking like porn stars.” If Ja Rule is punished for anything perhaps it should be that.
Still, we proceeded. Thursday night we flew to Miami where we would work with a fully functioning internet connection. The artists still hadn’t been paid. It was my job to try and be charming while explaining to tour managers that no, there still was no money or a technical director for the festival. There was, somehow, a secured alcohol sponsor, however. This whole thing was playing out as a hilarious disaster. It was clear to most of us that nothing was going to come together at this rate.
The next day, things really started to fall apart. On Friday, lots of people on the production team got fired. I did not get fired. I did get a phone call that same night that said something along the lines of, “Congratulations, the guys will allow you to continue to work on the festival! For two thirds of what you asked for. And we’re not paying the artists yet.” So with that, I quit. I told the tour managers I had been in contact with that I was going to take myself off the project. And then I flew back to New York and waited eagerly for six weeks to see how Fyre Festival would play out.
Then yesterday, to my dark delight, the rug was pulled out from under them. In the morning headliner and all-around relevant band in 2017 Blink-182 pulled out, citing sub-par production standards. Last night the festival evacuated almost everyone off the island on account of they didn’t have food or tents for anyone (minor details). Today, after a wild night of #fyrefestival terror broadcast on social media, Fyre announced the festival would be indefinitely postponed.
I cannot explain how or why the bros running this festival ignored every warning sign they were given along the way. The writing was on the wall. I saw it firsthand six weeks ago. They overlooked so many very basic things. And baby, they forgot to make me sign an NDA. | After delivering a "luxury" festival experience so bad some attendees likened it to The Lord of the Flies, the people behind the Fyre Festival have promised much better things next time around. In a statement to Billboard, festival co-owners Billy McFarland and rapper Ja Rule give their side of the story, explaining how they decided to "literally attempt to build a city" on a Bahamas island, but were "overwhelmed" and found thing spiralling out of control after rough weather took half the tents down Thursday morning, leaving them little time to rebuild. They acknowledge that the "guest experience" was "unacceptable" and have promised full refunds to festivalgoers—and free VIP passes to next year's Fyre Festival. "We have decided to add more seasoned event experts to the 2018 Fyre Festival which will take place at a United States beach venue," the statement says.Those who made it to Fyre Festival, where tickets cost up to $12,000, complained of chaos, food and water shortages, and disaster-relief tents instead of cabanas. On Friday, as the last attendees were flown back to Miami, McFarland, 25, told Rolling Stone that it was the "worst day of his life" At New York magazine, talent producer Chloe Gordon says she quit six weeks ago when it became clear that the festival would be a disaster. "I cannot explain how or why the bros running this festival ignored every warning sign they were given along the way," she writes. |
Elon Musk has escalated his baseless attacks against a British diver, claiming without evidence that the man who helped rescue children from a cave in Thailand was a “child rapist” in an email to a reporter.
The embattled Tesla CEO faced widespread backlash in July when he first called the diver Vernon Unsworth a “pedo” in a tweet – an unfounded claim against a man who was part of the international team that freed 12 young footballers and their coach from the Tham Luang cave complex. Musk, who had unsuccessfully attempted to assist the rescue mission, eventually apologized to Unsworth.
Elon Musk's 'pedo' claim is evidence only of his grossly inflated ego | Zoe Williams Read more
On Tuesday, however, BuzzFeed published two new emails from Musk, in which he called a journalist who has written about the dispute a “fucking asshole” and he launched new extraordinary claims against Unsworth, without providing documentation to support the allegations.
Musk called Unsworth a “single white guy from England who’s been traveling to or living in Thailand for 30 to 40 years”, alleging that he had moved to Chiang Rai “for a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time”. He asserted that the city was “renowned for child sex-trafficking”.
Ryan Mac (@RMac18) This was his first email to me after I asked him twice for comment on a legal threat from the rescuer's lawyer.
He prefaced the email with "off the record" though I did not agree to that condition. Off the record is a two-party agreement. pic.twitter.com/szknfOMg0s
BuzzFeed reported that it had investigated the allegations and Unsworth’s background, but could not verify any of the claims and said that it was unclear where the allegations originated.
Unsworth, who said he was considering legal action after the original insults on Twitter, is now moving forward with a lawsuit, his lawyer said in an email to the Guardian on Tuesday: “Elon Musk’s campaign of publishing vile and false accusations against Mr Unsworth is inexcusable. Musk hopes to be sued and he deserves to be sued. He will be.”
Musk’s email to BuzzFeed, which was a response to Unsworth’s latest legal threats, said: “I suggest that you call people you know in Thailand, find out what’s actually going on and stop defending child rapists, you fucking asshole … As for this alleged threat of a lawsuit, which magically appeared when I raised the issue (nothing was sent or raised beforehand), I fucking hope he sues me.”
Musk also defended his original effort to help the rescue mission in a follow-up email.
Musk confirmed to the Guardian on Tuesday that he had sent the emailbut did not immediately comment further. Tesla spokespeople did not respond to a request for comment.
BuzzFeed said it could not locate any UK criminal records for Unsworth, 63, and also spoke with his girlfriend, who said she was 40 and had been with him for seven years.
The controversy comes at a time when Tesla and Musk continue to battle intense negative publicity and embarrassing controversies. His seemingly impulsive tweets have repeatedly led him into trouble. Notably, Musk recently tweeted that he had “secured” funding to take his electric car company private, which prompted scrutiny from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and backlash from investors.
Earlier this year, Tesla’s credit rating was downgraded to negative, with Moody’s citing a “significant shortfall” in the Model 3 production rate. The CEO also faced criticism after he slammed analysts on an earnings call in the spring, saying they should stop asking “boring, bonehead questions”.
After the first attack on Unsworth, some investors demanded an apology and criticized Musk for distracting from Tesla’s mission.
Julia Carrie Wong contributed reporting ||||| Elon Musk is apparently renewing his claims that a British diver who assisted in the rescue of a youth soccer team from a Thai cave earlier this year is a child molester.
In a July tweetstorm, the Tesla Motors and SpaceX CEO labeled Vernon Unsworth, a diver who helped rescue 12 boys and their soccer coach from a flooded cave, a "pedo guy," after Unsworth criticized a submarine rescue plan the billionaire had proposed. The tweet has since been deleted and Musk apologized for the comment.
Musk doubled down on the accusation in an email sent last week to BuzzFeed News, calling Unsworth a "child rapist" who had moved to Thailand to take a child bride.
"I suggest that you call people you know in Thailand, find out what's actually going on and stop defending child rapists, you f**king a**hole," Musk wrote in an email that BuzzFeed published Tuesday. "He's an old, single white guy from England who's been traveling to or living in Thailand for 30 to 40 years, mostly Pattaya Beach, until moving to Chiang Rai for a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time."
Musk has offered no evidence to support his claims, and Unsworth attorney L. Lin Wood denied the latest accusation in a statement to BuzzFeed News.
"Elon Musk can tweet his vindictive and vicious lie about Mr. Unsworth a hundred times and it will still be a lie," Wood wrote in a statement. "After deleting the initial accusation and tweeting an apology, Mr Musk has continued to republish his false and unsupportable accusation. His conduct demonstrates that his recklessness is intentional and designed to harm Mr. Unsworth."
Musk's feud with Unsworth apparently began when Unsworth called Musk's involvement in the rescue effort a "PR stunt," telling CNN his submarine wouldn't have made it 50 meters into the cave and saying Musk could "stick his submarine where it hurts."
BuzzFeed also interviewed Woranan Ratrawiphukkun, Unsworth's 40-year-old girlfriend, who said they have been dating for seven years but declined to answer questions about their relationship.
Unsworth said in July he was considering legal action against Musk. Musk representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
This article originally appeared on CNET. ||||| In an email to BuzzFeed News, Tesla CEO Elon Musk accused a Thai cave rescuer of moving to Thailand to take a child bride. The rescuer denied all the claims.
Soe Zeya Tun / Reuters British caver Vernon Unsworth at the Tham Luang cave complex during a search for members of a soccer team and their coach in Thailand in June.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has renewed his attacks against a British man who played a key role in the rescue of a youth soccer team trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand. Musk last month apologized for accusing Vernon Unsworth of pedophilia after the diver questioned the value of Musk’s contribution to the rescue, a small submarine that ultimately went unused. But in a series of emails to BuzzFeed News, Musk repeated his original attacks on Unsworth — and made new and specific claims, lambasting the rescuer as a “child rapist” who had moved to the Southeast Asian country to take a child bride. Unsworth denied Musk's accusations through his attorney. Though Musk prefaced one email with “off the record,” BuzzFeed News did not agree to that condition of the correspondence. (Per common journalistic practice, a conversation is off the record only if both parties agree to the terms. ) BuzzFeed News first emailed Musk last Wednesday to ask for comment regarding a legal threat made by Unsworth’s lawyer in August after the Tesla CEO renewed his apparently evidenceless criticism of the rescuer in a Twitter argument the day before. Musk responded without addressing the substance of the legal threat. BuzzFeed News followed up twice, once on Wednesday and once on Thursday, and Musk responded with two separate emails.
“I suggest that you call people you know in Thailand, find out what’s actually going on and stop defending child rapists, you fucking asshole.”
“I suggest that you call people you know in Thailand, find out what’s actually going on and stop defending child rapists, you fucking asshole,” Musk wrote in the first message. “He’s an old, single white guy from England who’s been traveling to or living in Thailand for 30 to 40 years, mostly Pattaya Beach, until moving to Chiang Rai for a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time.” “As for this alleged threat of a lawsuit, which magically appeared when I raised the issue (nothing was sent or raised beforehand), I fucking hope he sues me,” he added. It is unclear why Musk believes the allegations against Unsworth or what evidence he has to support them. Musk did not provide proof of his claims to BuzzFeed News, and BuzzFeed News could not verify any of the claims after reporting on Unsworth’s background.
BuzzFeed News
The Tesla CEO’s continued campaign against Unsworth offers a glimpse into the new ability of some of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful figures to directly attack private citizens who cross them — and will test the capacity of traditional legal tools against them.
“Elon Musk can tweet his vindictive and vicious lie about Mr. Unsworth a hundred times and it will still be a lie,” Unsworth’s lawyer, L. Lin Wood, wrote in a statement. “After deleting the initial accusation and tweeting an apology, Mr Musk has continued to republish his false and unsupportable accusation. His conduct demonstrates that his recklessness is intentional and designed to harm Mr. Unsworth.” A spokesperson for Tesla did not immediately return a request for comment on Musk's newest allegations, and referred to a previous statement issued by the board in response to a question about its support for the company's CEO. The feud began in July when Musk tweeted that Unsworth was “a pedo guy” after the rescuer called the billionaire’s attempt to use a custom-designed submarine in the rescue effort a “publicity stunt.” Musk later apologized and deleted this tweets, but revisited the claim last week in an argument on Twitter, asking why Unsworth hadn’t sued yet if the accusations were indeed untrue. BuzzFeed News then reported that Wood had actually sent Musk a letter warning of a possible defamation suit in early August. Musk’s renewed attacks on Unsworth come after a series of erratic public gestures, notably a widely publicized suggestion that he would take Tesla private and the narration of his home life by the rapper Azealia Banks. And the new accusations leveled at Unsworth threaten to undermine a recent charm offensive intended to frame the CEO’s erratic behavior as the actions of an overworked luminary struggling to maintain his world-changing businesses. It’s been a particularly difficult summer for the billionaire, marked by Tesla’s missed production goals, clashes with reporters, and his failed attempt to take his car company private. Despite that, Musk still managed to maintain a dispute with Unsworth, a 63-year-old cave explorer and diver, whom he has now accused of taking a child bride. BuzzFeed News could find no evidence to support that claim, and Musk did not provide any documentation to support his accusations. Publicly available legal documents do nothing to support Musk’s claims: BuzzFeed News could not immediately locate any criminal records for Unsworth in the UK. Separately, a Thai immigration official named Ploy Pailin told BuzzFeed News that an individual on a visa would likely not have it renewed if they had been found guilty of criminal activity in the country. Pailin also said that while foreigners applying for visas in Thailand do not undergo mandatory background checks, those who are found guilty of serious crimes are often blacklisted by the government and can be removed from the country.
BuzzFeed News
BuzzFeed News also spoke with Woranan Ratrawiphukkun, a Thai woman who is Unsworth’s longtime girlfriend. She said she had been with Unsworth for more than seven years and has posted numerous photos about their relationship on social media dating back several years. Unsworth, she added, spends part of the year in Thailand and part of the time in the UK.
Ratrawiphukkun, who said she is 40, declined to comment on Musk’s allegations against Unsworth, and referred a reporter to his lawyers. Among Musk’s other claims about Unsworth is that he was not part of the actual dive team in the Thailand cave rescue. While Unsworth did not dive for the mission, media reports and other people who were part of the rescue cited the Brit as instrumental to the effort, as he had previously mapped and explored some of the cave system and recruited some of the divers who went into the cave. “He may claim to know how to cave dive, but he wasn’t on the cave dive rescue team and most of the actual dive team refused to hang out with him,” Musk wrote in one email. In another email in which Musk wrote “on background” — BuzzFeed News again did not agree to these terms — the Tesla CEO said, “Never saw Unsworth at any point. Was told he was banned from the site.” A British diver on the rescue mission who had previously been in contact with Musk, Rick Stanton, denied those claims. “I've no idea what gave you those concerns about Vern,” Stanton wrote over Facebook Messenger. “They are completely unfounded. He was never kicked off site by anyone and worked continuously on the rescue for the full duration. He was pivotal to the entire operation.” Two Australian specialists who were brought in by the Thai government to aid the Thai cave rescue operation, Richard Harris and Craig Challen, also rejected Musk’s allegation. “Vern seemed like an excellent guy and absolutely vital to the mission,” said Harris, who, with Challen, helped in the sedation of the Thai boys before they were brought out of the cave by the British divers. “You must be confusing him with someone else.” “He was pivotal with his knowledge of the cave. [The] rescue wouldn’t have happened without him recommending the Brits were called,” Harris said. Photos and videos posted on Facebook by Woranan and members of the local Thai news media show Unsworth at the site through the duration of the operation, which lasted more than two weeks in the country’s Chiang Rai province. Some of those photos show Unsworth posing with other British members involved with the rescue. In his second email to BuzzFeed News, Musk commented on Unsworth’s interview with CNN. “Unsworth also said I was asked to leave by the Thai govt, which is utterly false. Thai Prime Minister thanked me personally per attached docs. I went all the way to area 3 with the Thai SEAL team, who were awesome.” Unsworth did say that Musk was asked to leave the cave in the interview, but did not specify who had asked him. Musk also supplied a letter to BuzzFeed News from the Thai prime minister thanking him for his team’s involvement in the rescue. “I wish to convey my deep appreciation to you and your engineering team for your expeditious and extraordinary efforts in constructing the Space-X mini-submarine 'Wild Boar' to assist the rescue operation of the Moo Pa Academy Football team trapped in Tham Luang Cave, Chiang Rai province,” wrote General Prayut Chan-o-cha.
Elon Musk provided to BuzzFeed News
In addition, Musk claimed that the mini-sub, which ultimately was not used in the rescue, was built to Stanton’s specifications, and that it was not deployed only because too much water had been drained from the cave. Stanton, however, denied that was the reason, and said he did not recall providing exact specifications to Musk.
“We didn't use the tube because rescue operations were already well underway and it didn't have the necessary life support systems,” Stanton said to BuzzFeed News on Facebook Messenger. “Essentially, it wasn't developed enough. I do think it has promise in certain situations and I hope they keep working on it to get it in shape for evaluation and to be considered as a viable alternative in future underwater rescue scenarios.” In another claim, Musk noted that “the alleged threat of a lawsuit” from Unsworth “magically appeared when I raised the issue” on Twitter last week and that nothing had been sent prior to his outburst. L. Lin Wood, Unsworth’s lawyer, provided BuzzFeed News with confirmation showing that he had sent a note titled “Fwd: Defamation of Vernon Unsworth” containing the legal letter to the appropriate email address for Musk’s office at SpaceX on Aug. 6. BuzzFeed News corresponded with the Tesla and SpaceX CEO at a separate, personal email address that two sources confirmed belonged to Musk. One source, who had previously worked for Musk, noted that the email address can be accessed by the billionaire and his assistants. The source noted that it was not uncommon for Musk to personally respond to reporters and other people through that account. Wood did not respond to questions asking him to more specifically address each of Musk’s accusations, but suggested that he was moving closer to legal action. “Today the rich and powerful seem all too ready to tweet falsities in the hope and expectation that their wealth and position will protect them,” he wrote in a statement. “Pedophilia is too serious an issue to leave unchallenged. If Mr. Musk believes his wealth affords him protection from his lies and Twibels, he is sadly mistaken.” Here are the emails Elon Musk sent to BuzzFeed News reporter Ryan Mac From: Elon Musk < redacted > Date: Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 6:43 PM Subject: RE: BuzzFeed News: Unsworth legal letter To: "[email protected]"
Off the record
I suggest that you call people you know in Thailand, find out what’s actually going on and stop defending child rapists, you fucking asshole. He’s an old, single white guy from England who’s been traveling to or living in Thailand for 30 to 40 years, mostly Pattaya Beach, until moving to Chiang Rai for a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time. There’s only one reason people go to Pattaya Beach. It isn’t where you’d go for caves, but it is where you’d go for something else. Chiang Rai is renowned for child sex-trafficking.
He may claim to know how to cave dive, but he wasn’t on the cave dive rescue team and most of the actual dive team refused to hang out with him. I wonder why ...
https://www.google.com/search?q=chiang+rai+child+trafficking&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
As for this alleged threat of a lawsuit, which magically appeared when I raised the issue (nothing was sent or raised beforehand), I fucking hope he sues me.
*** From: Elon Musk < redacted > Date: Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 7:16 PM Subject: Fwd: Letters To: "[email protected]"
On background
Unsworth also said I was asked to leave by the Thai govt, which is utterly false. Thai Prime Minister thanked me personally per attached docs. I went all the way to area 3 with the Thai SEAL team, who were awesome. Never saw Unsworth at any point. Was told he was banned from the site.
It is also total bs that the mini-sub wouldn’t fit through the caves. It was designed and built to specifications provided to me directly by Stanton and the actual dive team. The only reason it wasn’t used was that they were able to drain almost all the water out of the caves, so the underwater portion was very short, and the monsoon arrived later than expected.
Those pumps were critical. Some of the Tesla team helped with electrical power, but major credit to whoever provided those pumps. They were amazing. I’m told they were from some company in India.
| Elon Musk has doubled down on his apparently baseless claims that Vernon Unsworth, the British cave diver who helped rescue a trapped youth soccer team in Thailand, is a pedophile. In an angry email to BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Mac, the Tesla CEO called the 63-year-old Unsworth a "child rapist" who married a child bride. "I suggest that you ... find out what’s actually going on and stop defending child rapists, you f***ing a**hole," Musk wrote. "He’s an old, single white guy from England who’s been traveling to or living in Thailand for 30 to 40 years, mostly Pattaya Beach, until moving to Chiang Rai for a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time." Musk has been feuding with Unsworth since the diver called his attempt to join the rescue effort a "PR stunt," CBS reports. Musk ended up apologizing after making similar claims in July, but he revived the accusations last week, wondering why Unsworth hadn't sued him. BuzzFeed, which spoke to Woranan Ratrawiphukken, a 40-year-old Thai woman who has been dating Unsworth for more than seven years, could find nothing to support Musk's claims. Divers on the rescue team rejected another Musk claim that they "refused to hang out with" Unsworth, whose knowledge of the cave system played a key role in the rescue. Musk's "campaign of publishing vile and false accusations against Mr Unsworth is inexcusable," Unsworth's lawyer tells the Guardian. "Musk hopes to be sued and he deserves to be sued. He will be." |
Al-Jazeera (which means "the peninsula," or "the island") was founded in 1996 in Qatar after the new Emir of Qatar, Shaykh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, purchased the rights to the Arabic TVdivision of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News Service. The BBC had been trying todevelop an all-Arabic television station in conjunction with the Saudi-owned Orbit Radio andTelevision Service. The joint venture failed after the two parties could not agree on issues relatingto the new station's editorial independence. (1) TheQatari monarchy, which also has closely aligneditself with U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf region, was embarking upon a limited course of politicalliberalization and believed that modernizing Arab media was central to its reform effort. The Emirof Qatar provided Al-Jazeera with an initial grant of $137 million, (2) allowing the station to retainmany of the BBC's recently hired Arab correspondents, many of whom are prominent Egyptian andLebanese journalists with western training. Prior to Al-Jazeera, Arab audiences could receive their news from either state-owned media or from several Arab satellite variety channels that broadcast both entertainment and newsprogramming. The news on all of these channels was, and still is, to some degree censored andcontrolled by state authorities. Even transnational, subscription-based Arab satellite channels tendto reflect the viewpoints of the governments of the countries in which they are located. (3) Therefore,many analysts considered Al-Jazeera to be a novelty in the Arab world, not only because it was thefirst 24 hour, all-news Arabic television station, but also because it allowed its commentators andguests more latitude in expressing their opinions (including criticisms of Arab governments) thanhad been previously regarded as the norm in the Arab media. In fact, the creators of Al-Jazeeramodeled the station's format after western news services such as the Cable News Network (CNN)and the BBC, professing admiration for western stations' roundtable discussion programs,one-on-one interviews, and documentaries. Although Al-Jazeera borrowed the format of CNN, its creators set out to differentiate Al-Jazeera from its western counterparts. Many of Al-Jazeera's correspondents were drawn to workfor the station because they felt that American and British coverage of the 1991 Gulf War was noteven-handed in that it paid insufficient attention to topics of interest to Arab audiences, such as theplight of Iraqi civilians during the conflict. Thus, Al-Jazeera believes that it provides an alternativeperspective, particularly to the American and British news media. Al-Jazeera's motto, "The Viewand the Other Point of View," reflects its desire to be an uncensored, authentically Arab news sourcefor Arabs. Although Al-Jazeera, like most 24-hour news networks, intersperses news updates with headlines, sports, and financial news broadcasts throughout the day, its regularly scheduledprogramming is unconventional when compared to other Arab networks. Al-Jazeera has programssuch as "The Opposite Direction," "Without Borders," "The Other Opinion," and "Open Dialogue,"each of which features a well-known host who facilitates a lively discussion with some call-inquestions and comments. Viewers of Al-Jazeera have noted that the station's staff often try toencourage confrontation by pitting guests with opposite viewpoints against one another in debate.This approach has proven to be informative and entertaining for many viewers; however, some Arabintellectuals have criticized the approach as being too sensationalistic and heated. Beyond Al-Jazeera's programming, many western critics have accused the station of creating inflammatory lead-in segments to news reports, which often feature montages of violence in theWest Bank and Gaza Strip, Afghanistan, or Iraq. These short snippets contain flashes of provocativepictures, usually of human suffering, accompanied by dramatic background music. Al-Jazeera calledits coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom, "The War Against Iraq," and used lead-ins that showedcivilian casualties in Iraqi hospitals, exploding bombs in Baghdad, and U.S. soldiers on patrol incivilian areas. Some suggest that Al-Jazeera is merely following a Middle Eastern tradition ofdramatizing news events by appealing emotionally to the viewer. According to Al-Jazeera'sWashington Bureau Chief, Hafez Al-Mirazi, "there is a feeling in our newsroom that you need to beas realistic as possible and carry the images of war and the effect that war has on people ... yourpopulation shouldn't just eat their dinner and watch sanitized images on TV and video gamesproduced by the technological whizzes in the Pentagon and say this is war." (4) Since its inception, Al-Jazeera has received an enormous amount of publicity for breaking many of the taboos of self-censorship in the Arab media. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrotethat Al-Jazeera is "not only the biggest media phenomenon to hit the Arab world since the adventof television, it also is the biggest political phenomenon." (5) Indeed, many Middle Eastern expertshave praised Al-Jazeera for creating a forum in which Arab opposition movements can freelycriticize their host governments without fear of retribution. According to Edmund Ghareeb, an experton Middle Eastern affairs, "it has raised the level of debate and opened the door for freer and moreaccurate news in the Arab world ... Al-Jazeera has helped satisfy a hunger in the Arab world. Itsdebates and discussion programs are tumultuous even by western standards." (6) However, for all of the praise Al-Jazeera has received, there has been an equal amount of criticism regarding the network's perceived lack of objectivity. Many western media analysts haveasserted that Al-Jazeera's western-style format is merely a cover for a reporting style that is slantedtoward a popular pan-Arab, pan-Islamist viewpoint. According to critic Fouad Ajami of JohnsHopkins University, "no matter how many Americans show up on Al-Jazeera, the station will pursueits own oppositional agenda. Al-Jazeera's reporters see themselves as anti-imperialists. These menand women are convinced that the rulers of the Arab world have given in to American might; theseare broadcasters who play to an Arab gallery whose political bitterness they share -- and feed." (7) Moafac Harb, director of network news for the U.S. government's Middle East Radio Network,known as Radio Sawa, has argued that Al-Jazeera feigns its objectivity by inviting U.S. and Israeliofficials to present their views, while carrying provocative analysis in the studio, or one-sided newsstories lacking neutrality prior to or following these same interviews. (8) U.S. Ambassador Chris Ross,a fluent Arabic-speaker who has appeared on Al-Jazeera several times, commented that "it[Al-Jazeera] has a clear point of view on the events it is presenting for analysis and discussion ...with Al-Jazeera what you often get is several people, but all at one end of the spectrum. So there'swork to be done to induce more balance. But on the whole the advent of Al-Jazeera and other Arabsatellite stations has been a great step forward in opening up the intellectual and cultural life of theArab world." (9) In May 2003, Britain's Sunday Times reported that Iraqi intelligence files uncovered after the Iraq war revealed that Iraqi intelligence had penetrated Al-Jazeera and had agents working there. (10) Shortly after this revelation, Al-Jazeera replaced its Chief Executive Officer, Mohammed JasimAl-Ali, who had been CEO of Al-Jazeera since its inception. According to press reports, thedocuments, which were obtained in Baghdad by the Iraqi National Congress, indicated that Al-Alimade clear to Iraqi agents that coverage would favor the Saddam Hussein regime. Al-Ali willcontinue to serve on Al-Jazeera's board of directors. Defenders of Al-Jazeera have decried criticism of the station, noting that all newspapers and television stations have some degree of bias and that Al-Jazeera has at least given air time todissenting opinions. According to the Beirut-based Daily Star , "in its coverage of the Intifada (Palestinian uprising), and the war in Afghanistan, Al-Jazeera has actually given a voice to every sidein the conflict, and done nothing more than televise the images its reporters are seeing." (11) In aninterview with the Christian Science Monitor , the chair of the department of journalism and masscommunication at the American University of Cairo remarked that "sure, the news we get in theArab world is slanted ... in the same way the news received in the U.S. is biased." (12) There has been considerable speculation as to why the station has been able to report the news freely, given the restrictive media environment in neighboring Arab states. Many commentators haveattempted to answer this question by pointing to the nature of the Qatari state, as well as to the effortsof the Emir of Qatar to liberalize Qatari society, while using these political and social reforms topromote Qatar itself and increase its regional and global influence. Qatar is one of the most stablecountries in the Middle East, with a per capita income of over $25,000 for a population of 800,000people, only 170,000 of whom have citizenship (the majority of the rest are foreign workers fromSouth East Asia and the Phillippines). Analysts have pointed out that Al-Jazeera's openness andits"maverick" reporting style serves to promote Qatar as a progressive, modern state in the MiddleEast. Indeed, although the Qatari government has publicly sought to distance itself from Al-Jazeera,in terms of ownership, organization, and editorial output, both the state and the station enjoy amutually beneficial relationship, in which the visibility of Al-Jazeera has led to an increase in theprominence of Qatar. Thus, Al-Jazeera, although functionally independent, (13) could be said toindirectly serve the foreign policy goals of Qatar. Some experts question whether, in the long term, Al-Jazeera can maintain independence if it is unable to wean itself off of Qatari state financing. Originally, Al-Jazeera executives believed thatAl-Jazeera would be profitable by 2001. Two factors have prevented the station from generatingmore revenue: First, general market conditions in the Middle East advertising industry have not beenfavorable. There are already several Arab satellite television channels and as more stations comeonline and the situation in Iraq remains uncertain, advertising revenue will remain uneven. Second,there is a hesitation on the part of Arab conglomerates to advertise on Al-Jazeera, as they are fearfulthat Al-Jazeera's shaky relationships with Arab governments could harm their business interests.Because of these obstacles, the station is still running annual deficits, despite its rather leanworkforce of 775 employees worldwide (CNN has 4,000 and BBC has 3,300). Several U.S.companies have run advertisements on Al-Jazeera, including General Motors, Gillette, and Procterand Gamble. (14) Al-Jazeera's continued dependence on Qatar's financial backing has blurred the line between its status as a private or public news organization. Al-Jazeera has demonstrated characteristics ofboth a privatized and a state-run news network, as Qatar exerts little editorial control over day-to-daynews reporting while subsidizing Al-Jazeera's annual budget. Although Al-Jazeera may subtlypromote Qatar's political outlook, it does so under the umbrella of a regional news provider, makingit appear less tied to any one Arab government. Nevertheless, Al-Jazeera's executives have promotedtheir channel's independent image, which raises the following questions: As Al-Jazeera remains inan ambiguous position regarding its private or public status, will some analysts start to overlook thatstatus and treat Al-Jazeera as just another state-run media outlet, albeit one more sophisticated andpopular than the rest? Or, will Al-Jazeera secure the necessary advertising revenue to cover costs,perhaps leading to a looser arrangement with the Qatari government? Although Al-Jazeera has drawn praise for its willingness to discuss aspects of Arab politics previously considered off limits in Arab discourse, (15) critics continue to point out that Al-Jazeera doesnot treat Qatar with the same degree of scrutiny as it does other Arab governments. Al-Jazeeraexecutives have countered that Qatar is relatively free of political strife and therefore does notrequire much attention. However, according to the Asian Times , "it (Al-Jazeera) soft-peddles itsdomestic critique. Al-Jazeera has been dogged in its coverage of financial and political deals cutbetween Arab governments and Israel, but when allegations came out that Qatar had opened a tradeoffice in Tel Aviv, the station did not go after the story." (16) Other commentators have asked why thestation has not fully explored Qatar's friendly relationship with the U.S. military. AlthoughAl-Jazeera's website did cover a December 2002 U.S. war game in Qatar, dubbed "OperationInternal Look," there have been few attempts to examine the U.S. military presence in Qatar. Al-Jazeera's coverage of Iraq has drawn both praise and criticism. Al-Jazeera's first foray into the Iraq-U.S. confrontation came in 1998, when Iraq and the United States were in a standoff overthe removal of U.N. weapons inspectors from Iraq. Al-Jazeera outmaneuvered other networks, mostnotably CNN, by having correspondents in Iraq once the United States and Britain launched air andmissile strikes as part of Operation Desert Fox. Al-Jazeera also obtained an exclusive interview withSaddam Hussein, who reportedly wanted to deal with a station that could reach a wide Arabaudience. Some observers have contended that Al-Jazeera's popularity and credibility in the MiddleEast was established at that time. On the other hand, Al-Jazeera's detractors accused the network ofportraying Iraq as a victim during the standoff, focusing more on the detrimental effects of economicsanctions than on Saddam Hussein's disregard of United Nations' resolutions. Al-Jazeera's coverage of the 2003 war in Iraq has become a story within the wider story of the war. Following previous patterns, Al-Jazeera has been recognized for its access inside Iraq, (17) whilebeing criticized for being sensationalistic and slanted in its coverage of the U.S. military operation.Some observers have praised Al-Jazeera for keeping several reporters and camera crews on theground in Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra and delivering live feeds of wartime footage, to which severalU.S. news networks, including CNN, have access through partnership agreements. (18) According to BusinessWeek , during the Iraq war, Al-Jazeera had more reporters in Iraq than any other major newsstation. (19) Al-Jazeera also is one of the few stations that has aired press briefings from Iraqi officials, as well as video footage whose authenticity has been disputed of Saddam Hussein in meetings withother senior Iraqi leaders. Several U.S. officials and independent analysts have appeared on thestation to give commentary on the U.S. war effort. Prior to the start of the war, the Pentagon grantedAl-Jazeera four "embedded" slots with the U.S. military. However, most of Al-Jazeera's reporterson the ground have remained independent of the U.S. military. According to Georgetown UniversityProfessor Samer Shehata, "the war coverage on Al-Jazeera compares favorably with the warcoverage on American networks ... they have a perspective. It's from a perspective of what the waris like for the Iraqi people ... but I've never seen anything favorable to the Iraqi regime onAl-Jazeera." (20) Negative reaction to Al-Jazeera's coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom has come from many fronts. U.S. Administration officials, Members of Congress, and some independent analysts wereangered that U.S. prisoners of war and several dead U.S. soldiers were displayed on Iraqi TV andon an Al-Jazeera broadcast in late March 2003. U.S. officials accused Al-Jazeera of providing avehicle for Iraqi propaganda and for actions that violated international rules on handling of prisonersof war. In testimony before the House Armed Service Committee on April 4, 2003, W. Hays Parks,special assistant to the Judge Advocate General of the Army, stated that "Iraqi Television andal-Jazeera have aired a tape of U.S. soldiers answering questions in humiliating and insultingcircumstances designed to make them objects of public curiosity, in violation of the GPW (1949Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Prisoners of War)." (21) Others have pointed to the overall tone of Al-Jazeera's broadcasts, labeling them inflammatory, emotional, and slanted toward covering the suffering of the Iraqi people, rather than Iraqiscelebrating the demise of the Hussein regime. In one broadcast from a Baghdad hospital wherewounded children were shown, an Al-Jazeera correspondent commented with distress that "they saidit would be a clean war, they said they wouldn't hit civilians, they said they wouldn't hitinfrastructure, they said, and said, and said." (22) Inaddition, Al-Jazeera has come under fire for itschoice of terminology, which many commentators have suggested is heavily weighed against theUnited States. For example, coalition troops are sometimes called "invading forces"and suicideattacks are called "martyrdom operations," terms that Arab governments and the Arab media oftenuse to describe the Israeli army and Palestinians. In the United States, the New York Stock Exchange revoked the credentials of Al-Jazeera, saying its credentials were only for news that provided "responsible" coverage. (23) In addition,Akamai Technologies, an Internet Developer based in Cambridge, MA, cancelled a contract toprovide web services for Al-Jazeera's new English language website. On the other hand, Iraqiofficials demanded that several Al-Jazeera correspondents leave Iraq, accusing the station of beingan extension of U.S. propaganda after Al-Jazeera broadcasted images of Iraqis trampling on picturesof Saddam Hussein. In response, Al-Jazeera suspended coverage by its correspondents in northernand southern Iraq. Nevertheless, Al-Jazeera reportedly has substantially increased its subscriber base since the start of the war and has received much media attention. An Al-Jazeera correspondent, Tariq Ayoub, waskilled in Iraq after U.S. missiles struck a hotel in downtown Baghdad. The hotel has been a base forforeign reporters. Al-Jazeera accused the United States of deliberately targeting its journalists, anaccusation the United States denied vehemently. During the war in Afghanistan in 2001,Al-Jazeera's Kabul office was accidently struck by U.S. fire. Despite Ayoub's death, a recent articlein The NewYorker noted a marked improvement in relations between Al-Jazeera and the U.S.military. According to Al-Jazeera producer and reporter Omar al-Issawi, "slowly, people atCENTCOM are starting to realize that we're not the enemy ... we're not some insensitive monsterbent on bashing America." (24) In postwar Iraq, Al-Jazeera has continued to slant its coverage against the United States, labeling Iraqi attacks against U.S. forces as "resistance" to the "occupation." (25) Although many ofAl-Jazeera's reports from Iraq are factual accounts of the latest events, reports are often followed bycritical statements of local Iraqis without providing the perspective of coalition forces. Al-Jazeera'sIraq coverage is often introduced by a short series of images, depicting U.S. soldiers in a negativelight. Although Al-Jazeera's coverage of Operation Desert Fox brought the station much notoriety in 1998, it was its proximity to Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist organization thatbrought the news network into the global mainstream. When the United States began OperationEnduring Freedom in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, Al-Jazeera was the only major news networkwith a field office in Kabul. As was the case in Iraq, many observers were impressed with thestation's ability to "get the scoop," as western networks were forced to rebroadcast Al-Jazeeratransmissions with their now identifiable gold logo in the corner of the screen. However, Al-Jazeera's considerable access to the Taliban and Al Qaeda also brought it a high degree of scrutiny from western governments, particularly after it aired taped speeches of Osama BinLaden. Al-Jazeera had been airing taped interviews and footage of Osama Bin Laden since 1998, aspart of its regular coverage of the region. (26) However, after the attacks of September 11, 2001 andAl-Jazeera's airing of a Bin Laden tape only hours after the start of Operation Enduring Freedom,some western media outlets began to accuse Al-Jazeera of being a mouthpiece for Al Qaeda; (27) otherobservers even accused the station of collaborating with Al Qaeda. Bush Administration officials were displeased with the station's decision to air the tapes, as Secretary of State Colin Powell criticized Al-Jazeera for carrying "fierce" and "irresponsible"statements from Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda spokesmen. (28) Other officials, includingNational Security Director, Condoleezza Rice, held meetings with the major U.S. news networks toformulate a common policy toward future broadcasts of any new Bin Laden tape. Al-Jazeera staffersand others criticized the U.S. government for trying to censor free speech. U.S. officials respondedby asserting that the broadcasting of Bin Laden's tapes could pose a threat to national security andsuggesting that his speeches might contain hidden messages to followers around the world. Since the initial controversy over the Bin Laden tapes, there have been a number of reports as to why Al Qaeda chose Al-Jazeera as a conduit for its messages. Many analysts believe that AlQaeda was attracted to Al-Jazeera's large Arabic-speaking audience. Observers also speculated thatAl-Jazeera, eager to make headlines and without rigorous governmental scrutiny, was in a positionto broadcast the Bin Laden tapes, as opposed to the more cautious Arab state media. Some analystsconsidered that Al Qaeda would have found Al-Jazeera to be sympathetic to its cause based on thenetwork's past coverage of Iraq in 1998. One theory explaining the Al-Jazeera - Bin Ladenconnection comes from Al-Jazeera's London Bureau Chief, Yosri Fouda, who interviewed two ofAl Qaeda's top leaders, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin Al-Sheeba (both are now in U.S.custody). Fouda had been chosen by Al Qaeda's leaders to tell their story. According to Fouda: I asked them [Al Qaeda], first of all, why me? And they said that there are other journalists both inside and outside of Al-Jazeera who are thought of ashaving some sort of degree of sympathy with their cause. So for that very reason, they said theywanted to have this story done by someone "more secular in his professional approach"so that theirmessage would carry more credibility ... it confirmed my initial impression that there is someonewho understands media, and particularly television, inside Al Qaeda." (29) Al Qaeda may have been looking for an outlet like Al-Jazeera, knowing that the station was eager to break a big story and would be willing to present their point of view without editorializing itscontent. In a New York Times Magazine feature on Fouda, author Peter Maass noted that "Fouda isa chameleon ... he mixes easily at both mosques and pubs. He is, in this way, an excellent journalist,because he can pretend to be all things to all people, including a friend to terrorists." (30) Some commentators have pointed out that Al-Jazeera's coverage of U.S. operations in Afghanistan in 2001 was similar in focus to its coverage of Iraq a year and a half later. Again, criticshave noted that the station aired Taliban claims of military successes on the battlefield with little orno response from U.S. officials. Al-Jazeera also was criticized as placing virtually exclusiveemphasis on the plight of Afghan civilians and the destruction caused by American bombing, airinggruesome images of wounded Afghan women and children. Whereas in U.S. government parlance,the war in Afghanistan was part of a larger "war on terrorism," Al-Jazeera's method for describingthe war came with the preface of "the war on what it calls terror." (31) Analysts further criticizedAl-Jazeera's alleged overemphasis on covering civil liberties violations of American Muslims,asserting that such violations were the acts of individuals and contrary to U.S. policy. As one of the most politically divisive conflicts in the world, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a source of contention for the world's media, challenging the objectivity of western andnon-western media outlets alike. Within this context, many observers believe that Al-Jazeera is nodifferent. Like other Arab networks and newspapers, it has covered the conflict from a distinctlyArab perspective. According to one Al-Jazeera correspondent based in the West Bank, "to beobjective in this area is not easy because we live here. We are part of the people of here. And thissituation belongs to us also, and we have our opinions." (32) In contrast to state-controlled Arab media, Al-Jazeera has taken the controversial step of broadcasting interviews with and statements by Israeli officials, a practice shunned by many Arabchannels. Al-Jazeera has invited Israeli leaders such as Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak on air for TVinterviews. Israel also has sent officials, some of whom are fluent in Arabic, from its ForeignMinistry to appear on Al-Jazeera. Indeed, some Arab governments, newspapers, and even Palestinianhard-liners have accused Al-Jazeera of being in league with Israel and acting as an extension ofIsraeli intelligence. Al-Jazeera has noted that Arab governments tend to vocalize accusations ofAl-Jazeera's collaboration with Israel during times of tension between the station and foreign Arabgovernments. (33) Despite the novelty of Israeli officials on Arab television, some analysts have pointed out that, in covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Al-Jazeera follows a similar approach to its coverage ofthe war in Iraq and the war on terrorism in Afghanistan: it uses vivid, violent montages of Palestiniansuffering to introduce news segments; it employs language which describes suicide bombings as"martyrdom operations;" and it calls the Israeli army an "occupation force." This approach hascaused some experts to suggest that Al-Jazeera's personalization of the news, in which it emphasizesArab and Muslim victimization, is a template which has been applied in its coverage of Iraq,Afghanistan, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mamoun Fandy, a Middle East expert and mediaanalyst, asserted that in one Al-Jazeera anchor's description of the U.S. capture of the Baghdadairport during the recent Iraq war, the anchor mistakenly replaced the United States with the wordIsrael. According to Fandy, "you take the Americans, put the Israelis; you take the Palestinians, putthe Iraqis; and the same script goes on." (34) Al-Jazeera's detractors also have accused it of propagating anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli viewpoints, in an attempt to sensationalize its programming and boost its ratings. In the fall of 2002,David Duke, a former leader of the Klu Klux Klan, appeared on the Al-Jazeera talk show "WithoutBorders," claiming that Israeli intelligence knew in advance that the World Trade Center was aboutto be destroyed and that it had warned Israelis to evacuate the towers before they were hit. (35) Dukemade the same argument in a Palestinian paper in January 2002. Al-Jazeera also has been attackedfor broadcasting a talk show with the title "Is Zionism Worse Than Nazism?," in addition to hostinga call-in show which discussed the validity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion . Both shows didpresent different viewpoints unlike other Arab media outlets; however, some observers claim thatthe anti-Semitic viewpoint was given an unfair amount of attention. Supporters of Al-Jazeera believe that the station's coverage is not biased, but merely reflects a different perspective of the conflict, in which Palestinians are locked into a war of independencewith the Israeli military. According to Al-Jazeera's Washington Bureau Chief, Hafez Al-Mirazi,"The first Palestinian Intifada ( uprising) was covered by CNN, which directed its coverage to aWestern public, and ended up de-humanizing the Palestinian struggle and cause. But because of ourcoverage, and that of other Arab satellite television channels, the second Intifada influenced Arabpublic opinion more." (36) Al-Jazeera also has drawnpraise for its strong presence in the West Bankand Gaza Strip, as the station has been able to broadcast real-time coverage of Israeli-Palestinianviolence. Although the images of Al-Jazeera broadcasts are often disturbing and beyond the normsfound on U.S. television, proponents of Al-Jazeera claim that they present a more realistic pictureof the day-to-day hardships of life in the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the present conflict. Othercommentators have noted that even the Palestinian Authority, like other Arab governments, hastemporarily shutdown Al-Jazeera's Ramallah office when it disapproved of its broadcasts. (37) Although Al-Jazeera has received much attention for its coverage of the war in Iraq, someobservers suggest that, despite its popularity, it should not be treated as a barometer for measuringthe Arab media as a whole. Currently, there are other television stations, like the new 24-hour newsnetwork Al-Arabiya, and many pan-Arab newspapers, some of which are published in westerncapitals, which reach a wide audience on a daily basis. According to media analyst David Hoffman,"most Americans have heard of only Al-Jazeera," (38) but in reality, Arabs get their news from a varietyof sources, many of which are "far worse" than Al-Jazeera. Indeed, in November 2002, an Egyptiantelevision station, which is partially government-owned, broadcast a series entitled "HorsemanWithout a Horse." The story was a chronicle of the Arab struggle against colonial rule and againstthe establishment of the state of Israel; however, it included a sub-plot involving a forged document- the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - describing an alleged Jewish plot for world domination, whichwas used by the Nazis as a pretext for the Holocaust. (39) Al-Jazeera's impact on the Middle Eastern media as a whole remains unclear. Some variety satellite networks have slightly altered their formats to include more debate-style talk shows. Aspreviously mentioned, a new competitor news network, Al-Arabiya, has started operating in Dubai'smedia city in the United Arab Emirates. Al-Arabiya reportedly has received a great deal of financialbacking from more conservative sources, which may be reflected in its reporting style. Arab Mediawatchers have observed that, as popular as Al-Jazeera has become, many viewers still desire localnews coverage, making Al-Jazeera only one of several news sources for the average viewer in theMiddle East. (40) Some suggest that Al-Jazeera,because of its high subscription cost, is equally aspopular outside of the Middle East as within. In the United States, subscribers can order Al-Jazeerathrough satellite dish companies, which package Al-Jazeera with several other channels at a priceof several hundred dollars a year. Al-Jazeera's ability to cover breaking news, to promote its slick, entertaining format, and toproject subtly its pan-Arab, pan-Islamist approach to covering the news has sparked some U.S.officials and analysts to suggest ways of promoting a response to its distinctive influence. Othershave dismissed calls for policy responses. Some experts warn that any overt U.S. action could beviewed as heavy handed in a region which has traditionally been sensitive to outside involvementin regional or local affairs. Al-Jazeera claims that U.S. steps intended to promote a more balancedmedia in the Arab world will backfire, because Arabs will consider it a propaganda effort of the U.S.government. A range of possible actions has been proposed. In one category are actions that activelypromote U.S. policy. They include: Create an alternative Arabic Language Television Network . In the emergency supplemental appropriations bill of April 16, 2003 ( P.L. 108-11 ), Congress designated $30.5 millionfor the Middle East Television Network (METN). (41) According to Norman Pattiz, the founder andchairman of Westwood One Radio Network and a member of the U.S. Broadcasting Board ofGovernors (BBG), "as most people in the region get their news and information from TV, we needto be on TV so we can explain America and its policies, its people, and its culture from our own lipsrather than have it described by the indigenous media." (42) The exact scope and style of METN hasyet to be determined. The BBG already sponsors Radio Sawa, an Arabic radio station, whichcombines popular music with news headlines. Tie foreign aid to media reform . Some analysts contend that this technique, which has worked for some human rights cases, might be applied to the media as well. Buy commercial air time on Arab networks . During the last two years, the State Department Office of Public Diplomacy has been implementing the "Shared Values Program," a $15million effort to promote positive images of Muslim life in America. TV advertisements depictingAmerican Muslims ran for 5 weeks in late 2003 in Pakistan, Kuwait, Malaysia, and on somepan-Arab channels, but not Al-Jazeera. (43) Althoughthe overall campaign continues, the StateDepartment stopped running the commercials after the governments of Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanonrefused to carry them on state-run television. Other policy experts have suggested more indirect ways of influencing the Arab media, including the following actions: Have U.S. officials engage the Arab media more actively . As previously mentioned, top United States cabinet officials have appeared on Al-Jazeera television for interviews.Proponents of this strategy believe that more appearances by U.S. officials, particularly those fluentin Arabic, would convey confidence in U.S. foreign policy. Skeptics of this strategy believe thatAl-Jazeera and other channels could skew the pre and post-interview analysis against the U.S.position. Favor the more moderate Arab satellite networks . With almost a dozen different Arab satellite channels, some analysts believe that U.S. interests would be better served ifU.S. officials appeared on less sensationalist Arab networks in order to foster competitors toAl-Jazeera. Some even suggest encouraging U.S. companies to advertise on these types of stations. Encourage more privatization of media . Under the auspices of the State Department's Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), there have been plans to fund media reformprograms in some Arab states. As MEPI is just starting to take shape, the initiative could fund mediatraining for aspiring journalists, as well as programs that promote freedom of thepress. (44) One argument, which is widely circulated in Arab intellectual circles, is that the best way to combat the coverage of channels such as Al-Jazeera would be to focus U.S. foreign policy on solvingthe Arab-Israeli conflict. Others argue that biased coverage will continue no matter what directionthe United States takes its policy in the Middle East. With the United States heavily engaged in Iraq,Afghanistan, and elsewhere, Al-Jazeera will continue to play a role in reporting and interpreting U.S.foreign policy to the Arab world. | Al-Jazeera, the Arab world's first all-news network was started by the Persian Gulf monarchy of Qatar. It has come to be recognized as a key player in covering issues of central importance toU.S. foreign policy in the Middle East: the conflict in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict. Al-Jazeera has become so publicly influential that U.S. officials nowregularly appear on the network. Although Al-Jazeera has received praise for its uncensored formatand for airing interviews with U.S. and Israeli officials, as well as Arab critics of the policies of Arabgovernments, it has drawn criticism from many observers in the United States and elsewhere for aperceived lack of objectivity in covering these conflicts, including the activities of Al Qaeda. Fortheir part, officials from Al-Jazeera have claimed that they merely reflect Arab popular resentmentof U.S. policy in the Middle East. This paper provides an overview of Al-Jazeera and explores the debate surrounding its objectivity. This report also analyzes Al-Jazeera's coverage of events in the Middle East,specifically, its coverage of events in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel and the West Bank and GazaStrip. The final section of this report discusses policy options regarding U.S. public diplomacyefforts in the Middle East region. This paper will be updated periodically. |
Subsets and Splits